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

Evolution


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 138 in total
Wed, 27 Sep 2017 #61
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
the "revolution" IS the ending of 'time' as a factor of 'becoming' anything.

Could it be, Dan, the ending of our ages old habit of thinking about our fragmentary 'psychological' condition terms of time ? This is obviously an identitary sub-division of the thought process. We can look in a detached way at other people's 'ego-becoming' - and very often it does seem ridiculously limited. But the same becoming process could be the only 'real life' modality for the human brain to order its real-time actions and relationships: if you want a good crop for the next year, you'd better start preparing for it now. The same logic is naturally extended to our psychological condition - not very good right now, but by straightening up some older actions, habits, conditionings, we can make it better . And it does work pretty well in some physical compartments- losing weight, dropping some bad habits, creating new and healthier ones- there is a vast open field for self-improvement. But the 'identitary ' core of our consciousness is -generally speaking- never questioned. It is not just 'becoming' but it also 'is'.

So, at this point we can bravely accept the K challenge (of ending 'time') or simply ignore it, since our physical life will go on anyway. The deeper existential question is : yes, but with what quality ? The actual condition of a life spent in ego-centric temporal continuity is obviously one of slower or faster decay & degradation, due to additive nature of our conflicts and/or other neglected psychological problems. What happens is that the original ( as in 'original sin' ?) division 'observer-observed' is engendering many other co-lateral fragmentations- us vs them, now vs then , etc...

And at this point we're at a major existential crossroad: do we automatically accept the old mental patterns of 'survival at any price' ? or, we're taking some 'quality time' (sic...) to contemplate whether we have other 'psychological' options ? And this option of 'free choice' is purely individual, since in terms of our collective consciousness the option of 'survival ( +/-) at any price is still... a 'no brainer'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Oct 2017 #62
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 107 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
not 'move away' from what you are, ( whatever you are ) and to be fully, wholly, 'what you are',

How does one "try" that, Dan?

You are what you are. You are already what you are. You cannot in any way be other than you are. So, what is there to try? Even when you are trying to move away from what you are, that is also what you are, you are someone who tries to move away. But listen, you cannot stop moving any more than a chicken can stop laying eggs.

When you 'try' to stop moving, you are trying to be as you are by not being as you are. So all the words come to nothing once more. Which is also what you are.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Oct 2017 #63
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 107 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
to be fully, wholly, 'what you are', transforms that state into 'what you are not'.

Cute but . . .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Oct 2017 #64
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 107 posts in this forum Offline

The problem is that you cannot be "wholly" what you are because you are not "whole."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Oct 2017 #65
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 107 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
You want a 'method'?

No, but when someone asks me to try something I ask what it is they want me to try. You said to try being oneself. Well, one is oneself so why is there any need for trying?

Dan McDermott wrote:

Paul David son wrote:

The problem is that you cannot be "wholly" what you are because you are not "whole."

Not true.

Seems true to me, Dan. To tell someone to be "wholly" who they are has the explicit assumption that they are whole, which means in this case to be integrated of mind. We are not. To be as you are must mean what it says, Dan. We are fragmented. But okay, you go on . . .

Dan McDermott wrote:
But forget "wholly" or "fully" if that is a problem for you

No, it is not my personal problem but the problem for humanity. Neither is it a matter of choosing the right word. It seems to me Dan that you are offering a method and that I am questioning it. And you continue . . .

Dan McDermott wrote:
.just try to 'be' what you are, whatever that is.

I am a fragmented human being. I do not have to try to be so. I am so. The extra problem arises when I try to be whole.

I think at the bottom of our difference here is an idea, the idea that at the bottom of everything, one is whole. I say we are not whole, we are fragmented. The "be as you are" is a rotten cliche that I have read from every guru I have ever encountered or read about. Chopra says it. The Maharishi said it. They all trot it out. They all pass it off as wisdom with a sweet smile as if they are giving you something. It is empty and vague.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Oct 2017 #66
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 24 posts in this forum Offline

Paul,

Who tries to be a fragmented human being? I think no one tries to be THAT. Who tries to be whole? What does trying to be whole even mean?

But don't I try to be calm when I’m anxious; not to be angry or afraid when I’m angry or afraid; not to be jealous when I’m jealous; to be humble when I’m vain; and so on? That’s where the effort not to be what I am can be seen.

If there is a flame of interest to understand "what is", a flame of discontent, isn't that flame the effortless awareness of what I am and of my efforts not to be what I am (or to be what I am not)? And being aware of what I am, acknowledging it, facing it without resistance, does change it, doesn't it?

When I try not to be angry, when I try to resolve anger, anger cannot understood.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Oct 2017 #67
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 107 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
It's not about "trying to be whole", it is trying to be what you 'are' and being 'aware' of that.

And I asked, why try to be what you are? You are what you are without trying. I just don't get your point, Dan.

I agree that people try to be what they are not but I say that that is also what they are. They are people trying to be what they are not. Look at your argument with care and you see that wherever it goes it ends up in a circle.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Oct 2017 #68
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 107 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Paul,

I agree with all you wrote, Huguette.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Oct 2017 #69
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 107 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
And being aware of what I am, acknowledging it, facing it without resistance, does change it, doesn't it?

Except that. To acknowledge what you are does not change what you are in any fundamental sense. All that has changed is the acknowledgement.

You are always changing, Huguette. You do not stop changing. But the fundamental change K spoke of cannot be the result of acknowledging what you are. Were it the case many of us would have undergone the psychological revolution he preached. To say, 'be who you are and thereby become what you are not' is as dumb as it sounds, a simplistic recipe that all the gurus have preached for one hundred years and which has resulted in nothing.

'Be who you are' is meaningless for the very reason that you cannot be anything other than you are. And it is a sly way of promising that there is an easy road to becoming what you are not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Oct 2017 #70
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 107 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
being with whatever state you're in actually transforms it

which is quite different from saying . . .

Dan McDermott wrote:
"Being 'what you are', and being aware of it transforms that state into 'what you are not'.

Being with a state you are in and not trying to end it by will, means to stay with that state so that it can be seen for what it is ever more clearly and that has the potential to alter the state without any more being done. There is no suggestion in that of trying to be what you are and there is no suggestion that by doing so one becomes what one is not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Oct 2017 #71
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 24 posts in this forum Offline

75:

Paul David son wrote:
To acknowledge what you are does not change what you are in any fundamental sense. All that has changed is the acknowledgement.

Even though our birth, life, death and the universe are beyond the full comprehension of our limited brain, we confidently ascribe many “shoulds” and “what should be’s” to our life, without any basis for it other than our conditioning. I see "myself" and my life as my personal domain - separate from the mysterious wholeness of the universe - because I am conditioned to see it that way. These “shoulds” and “what should be’s” of our conditioning are at the root of fear, and fear is at the root of anger, bitterness, jealousy, desire, depression, our pursuit of pleasure, and so on.

So that the causes against which my anger is directed and the explanations that I attribute to my anger come from my conditioning. Being based on conditioning, they are false.

But if I look "head on" at anger as it arises, without any movement of escape or resistance, without justifying it or trying “not to be” it, I am acknowledging the whole process of it. Then I understand anger. I see the falseness of the ideas and assumptions on which it is based, in which it is rooted. When the cause and explanations for my anger are seen to be false, I naturally no longer try not to BE angry. The feeling of anger etc. may still arise but it is understood and not resisted or escaped. It is not the springboard for action.

I’m not saying it is so. That’s how I see it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Oct 2017 #72
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 24 posts in this forum Offline

75:

Paul David son wrote:
'Be who you are' is meaningless for the very reason that you cannot be anything other than you are. And it is a sly way of promising that there is an easy road to becoming what you are not.

Also .... :-)

Paul,

I agree that you cannot be anything other than what you are - i.e. afraid, angry, bitter, vain, selfish, a pleasure-seeker, etc. I might repress or try to hide what I am, but the compulsions, obsessions, fears and desires remain in consciousness so that nothing really is fundamentally changed by this.

If effort cannot alter “what I am”, can there BE transformation? Maybe not. Is there anything more worthy of looking into? Maybe “transformation” sounds pretentious but that is what is needed, isnt it? - not merely to somewhat modify, alter, reorganize, refine or polish “what I am” - which obviously doesn't refer to our profession, wealth, likes and dislikes, manners, dress, speech, status, and so on. We’re talking about our compulsions and fears, the things which make us suffer and which constrain us.

Do we approach the question (of transforming “what I am”) through our knowledge, ideas, beliefs, conclusions, etc.? Can it be approached without relying on the authority of knowledge?

“Be what you are” is not a cunning, misleading promise, as I see it. K said that it is hard work, arduous. And it IS arduous to observe and learn about the workings of one’s mind, without thought interfering.

“Be what you are” means JUST be what you are without trying to change it, without pretending not to be it. Just be it and be aware of it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 19 Oct 2017 #73
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 107 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Even though our birth, life, death and the universe are beyond the full comprehension of our limited brain

Hi Huguette. It is always the 'odd' phrases that capture my attention. And this one made me wonder if there is really any more to comprehend about birth, life and death than we know from our experience. The suggestion implicit in your comment is that there is something to 'comprehend' that has been beyond our grasp but is there? Isn't birth and death a fact? Maybe the problem is that we try to find a deeper or hidden meaning in something which is there before our eyes and is simply factual. I am born. I will die. In between there is life, which is an intricate pattern covering all life, not merely my own. I cannot escape it. I am it. I do not need to know every detail down to the quantum level to know what life is, do I?

Yes, the human brain is limited but then, so is everything in the whole universe limited. Probably the universe itself is limited. Everything that is in any way lawful or ordered is 'limited' by those same laws and orders. Something that is truly free of any connection whatsoever does not exist. Nothing stands alone. The brain functions as part of the organic whole in order to accomplish certain things, namely, the survival of the life form and its inter-generational persistence. So, we feed, fight, fuck and 'fink' according to the order of our species as it has evolved. At least, that is how I see it.

I think we have to set the question back into the framework of our own evolution, which is the evolution of all life and which is the story of natural history. We are one product of the ongoing movement of all and everything. We are not perfect and cannot aim for perfection as our very idea of perfection is product of our imperfection. Yet, we are adequate to the task of living which the whole of evolution has set for us and our comprehensions fall within that framework.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 19 Oct 2017 #74
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 107 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The feeling of anger etc. may still arise but it is understood and not resisted or escaped. It is not the springboard for action.

A question arises whether one can separate anger from action or whether anger is action. I feel that anger is already its own action, whatever transpires from it outwardly. We can perhaps perceive how anger is set up. It is not just an internal feeling that one then acts upon. In evolutionary terms (and one can find out independently without the need of a theory) anger arises as communication. Our anger is a form of communication. When the face reddens the other sees it and knows to step back. Anger is the reddening of the face (and much more). It is not separate from that.

With humans, due to our capacity to think, our anger has become divided into feeling, then action, as if there exists a space of time between one and the other. "I may anger" one says, "but I need not act from that." This perceived time-gap also accords with how the human brain has evolved, how it is set up. I won;t go into it but one can trace the physical conditions that give rise to this very human division between the 'felt' and the 'act.' But at its base anger is still anger and the human face reddens as the baboon face reddens, in order to convey. "I don't like what you are doing and if you persist in it I will become aggressive." In the human case, 'consideration of the consequences' then comes in. Though you may call it "understanding."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 19 Oct 2017 #75
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 107 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Maybe “transformation” sounds pretentious but that is what is needed, isnt it?

It would be lovely if it could be done. In lieu of that however, friction keeps reminding us to pay attention and do better. We do not seem to have a control button that we can use to deepen that attention. Then all the gurus come in and tell us how we can fashion such a control button in ourselves by all sorts of methods.

So K was saying, in his way, do what you CAN do, keep the teaching in mind, investigate and ditch, where you can, all unnecessary baggage . . . not what K says is baggage but what you yourself find to be unnecessary to your life. Yes, 'try' to be serious, bit not as a practice. Which means what exactly? You will only be as serious as you already are. But this thing called 'transformation' is something that can only come to you, not something you can do or even hold out hopes for. So, forget transformation too for that is also part of your unnecessary baggage.

Did you ever read "Alices Adventures in Wonderland?' In particular where Alice is forever trying to enter the magic garden until finally the queen informs her that in order to get there one must head in the opposite direction, away from the garden and the goal of entering it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 19 Oct 2017 #76
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 107 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
“Be what you are” is not a cunning, misleading promise, as I see it. K said that it is hard work, arduous. And it IS arduous to observe and learn about the workings of one’s mind, without thought interfering.

I feel that 'be what you are' is not a typical K phrase. What he demanded of us is to KNOW what we are, but not in any mystical sense. To know what you are entails paying close attention to what you do. One can imagine all sorts of things about oneself. One can introspect. But life is relationship and it is what we do in relationship that is the best indicator of what we are. Relationship is, as K rightly said, relationship with people, with things, with nature and with ideas. See how you relate to the whole of life, not in general but in the day to day actions of heart, body and mind. Somewhere K suggested to do a recapitulation of the days actions before you sleep each night.

That seems to me quite different than 'observing the workings of one's mind,' which is a more narrow affair.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Oct 2017 #77
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 24 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote at #75:
In lieu of that however, friction keeps reminding us to pay attention and do better.

What's wrong with that - not "do better" but being aware of the friction? If I say that transformation is needed, it does not mean that I am determined to "be transformed", that "I must", that it is my goal. It just means that "transformation" is needed, without bringing time into it, without saying that it MUST happen or that it WILL happen. If someone is starving, food is needed. It might not happen.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Oct 2017 #78
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 24 posts in this forum Offline

re 75 and 76:

Paul,

I’m not saying that I personally want to understand the totality of birth, life, death and the universe or that I want to discover the source of creation. But, as I see it, man approaches problems with the outlook that there is a knowledge and understanding that he can acquire which will resolve any and all problems in every field of his life - family, work, society, physics, science, religion, philosophy. And this approach of acquiring more knowledge to solve problems is deeply ingrained in consciousness.

AT THE SAME TIME, as I see it, man is conditioned to being limited by and to the contents of his consciousness - that is, he is conditioned to being "me". Being conditioned and not being aware of it, he cannot be other than the contents. This limited mind is “me” and man is conditioned to accept this limitation of “me”. He thinks that what is “beyond me”, separate and independent, is the entire universe and its contents, infinite space. Part of the conditioning is that what is “beyond me” is of no consequence to man’s actions and relationships, that what is “out there, beyond me” is none of man's concern and has nothing to do with him. In his capacity as a scientist, physicist, philosopher, believer, etc. - he may think that there IS a connection between “me” and “what is beyond me”, but this idea has no impact on his actions with “the world”. In terms of his action, there is no connection between “me” and what is “beyond me”, and his action is wholly determined by the contents. It is like plankton having the idea that the sea is of no consequence to it.

This self-centric perspective and approach to action and relationship is also man’s conditioning.

So the 2 ideas exist side-by-side: - the idea that there is something beyond consciousness which can solve the problems of consciousness - and the idea that whatever lies beyond consciousness is of no concern or relevance to me. One of many contradictions within consciousness.

It is this contradictory, conflicted mindset that acts and relationship. It is the perspective or approach of self-centredness, ambition, envy, pretense, conceit, fear, desire, pleasure-seeking, and so on. It is this mindset which permeates relationship and action.

The limited mind cannot comprehend all the contents of the universe, cannot comprehend infinity and finity. But, through awareness of itself as it is, the limited mind can understand concsciousness and its limitations, the movements of thought, and so on. The limitation of the mind is a natural limitation. Just as the crab, the elephant, the ant, the whale are limited to their biology, man is limited. Man has the ability to think, and that ability may lead him to think that his mind is limitless in its capacities, but everything that is created is limited. Only the uncreated is unlimited.

As I see it, there is only one thing which gives life “meaning”, and that is love. That is the transformation that is needed, the ending of "me". Love encompasses intelligence, beauty, compassion, empathy. Love is not something that “I” can decide “to do or to be”. I’m not trying to find or acquire love. I just see it that, beyond breath, water, food, love is essential in life. Breath, water, food are essential to physical survival. Without love, one lives but life feels empty. Love is not something that can be acquired through effort. Love is not a reward I can earn. It is there in my heart, or not. All the riches, knowledge, cleverness, power, fame, reverence, admiration, in the world cannot bring love or peace into my heart.

This is how I see it. I can’t convince anyone and I don’t want to convince anyone.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sat, 21 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Oct 2017 #79
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 13 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
the idea that there is something beyond consciousness which can solve the problems of consciousness - and the idea that whatever lies beyond consciousness is of no concern or relevance to me. One of many contradictions within consciousness.

The contradiction as paradoxes gets resolved in the actual seeing, i.e.without a movement as justification, condemnation or identification. The consciousness isn't split then to conceptualize what is ongoing. And isn't this the movement as love and peace with what is, without requiring a label as so?

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Oct 2017 #80
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 24 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote at 79:
The contradiction as paradoxes gets resolved in the actual seeing, i.e.without a movement as justification, condemnation or identification. The consciousness isn't split then to conceptualize what is ongoing.

This is how I see it.

natarajan shivan wrote:
And isn't this the movement as love and peace with what is, without requiring a label as so?

I don’t know, Natarajan. I can’t say “yes”. The mind sees the contradictions and conflicting movements within consciousness and the seeing of it IS the ending of conflict, effort, desire to become. And there is freedom in that.

But isn’t it merely an idea to say that the seeing of it IS actual love? In the moment that the mind sees and understands the contradictions, does that seeing engender love? I might be mistaken but I think that love is the bliss that arises without invitation, without “setting a place at the table” for it.

Love - whatever it actually is - is not just an idea. The idea of love is not love - we have said similar things a 1000 times. The mind can remember love but actual love is something that can only be felt or experienced in the living moment, isn’t it? There is the memory of love - which is a hollow, dead thing - and there is love, which is a living moving thing. There is desire and there is "what is". The mind can only stay here, where it is, as it is. Learning is going on, ongoing, and I (the mind) might be mistaken.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 #81
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 107 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
What's wrong with that - not "do better" but being aware of the friction? If I say that transformation is needed, it does not mean that I am determined to "be transformed", that "I must", that it is my goal. It just means that "transformation" is needed, without bringing time into it, without saying that it MUST happen or that it WILL happen. If someone is starving, food is needed. It might not happen.

That's fine Huguette. I understand that if someone is starving, food is needed. I get that. Consider: Why does one get it? It seems that we get it because we make an association with our own feelings when we are hungry. We sense that in the other and we act on it in a way that mirrors what we do when hungry, we eat. So, we give food to the hungry. It is because we have not only experienced hunger but also its cessation through the act of eating. We know from experience that hunger is sated through food.

Now, can the same be said about something called 'transformation,' of which we have had no experience beyond the gradual evolution of our own time-bound minds? This is the basic difference, is it not. I do not have to project some marvelous and extraordinary thing to recognize hunger and its resolution. But when I talk of 'transformation' I am using imagination to solve a problem. I am projecting the imagined solution as something real via the word 'transformation,' a word that for me has only an imaginary content. I am sure there is a fundamental difference there and it is this difference which I am pointing to.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Nov 2017 #82
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 107 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
It is like plankton having the idea that the sea is of no consequence to it.

But I don't know who you are talking about, Huguette. You say that you are talking about man or 'conditioned man.' And I don't agree that conditioned man can be likened to plankton in that way. Man is conditioned, period. So we are discussing man, right? Unconditioned man is an idea. He may exist or may not but for us he is only an idea we hold. We are discussing man, man that we know, man that is conditioned.

So, does man have the idea that his environment has no consequence to him? That is your proposal. I don't see it. Man is totally immersed in relationship with his environment and in the consequences 'it' has on him. I have never met anyone who is not aware that his environment has consequences on him. The major shortcoming however is that he is less concerned in what consequences he has on his environment. He puts the question off and hopes future generations will be able to clean up his mess. He believes in his own ingenuity, that nothing he does cannot be undone. If he thinks of it at all, which he probably does, he realises that his hope is not based on anything more substantial than wishful thinking. This is man's hubris and may eventually be his downfall. He also knows this but feels he, as an individual, can do little about it. He doesn't wish to take the responsibility to stand up to it because he sees danger there. It is easier to live in hope. This is man's cowardliness.

To break from cowardliness and hubris as well as from arrogance and ignorance is man's greatest challenge. I think that psychologically, it would take a revolution to make that break. Fear and greed are powerful motivational forces that have evolved in man. Maybe they are there in all life but with man, thought can exploit them to unknown heights (or depths). We have evolved naturally and as a consequence of that evolution an animal came to pass that can think, can act from thought and can further act upon that thought through self-reflection. This has made man tremendously adaptable to his environment and capable of adapting that environment to his needs as well. But he is held back by another part of his heritage, his instinctive drives for self-protection and comfort. It seems that thought has no natural boundary in developing itself ever further in that direction. Evolution did not provide a failsafe for greed and fear. Evolution will not do so for us which is why, as K pointed out, revolution is the only 'possible' answer. The question remains however, is psychological revolution possible, not for the individual but for the species?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Nov 2017 #83
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 24 posts in this forum Offline

re 81:

Paul,

You say we understand hunger because we know first-hand what it is to be hungry.

In the same way that our common humanity enables us to understand hunger, don’t we also understand first-hand the suffering, fear, hate, greed, confusion, sorrow, despair felt by another? And just as the starving man (woman) cannot be satisfied with explanations, distractions, rewards, promises, hope, or anything else but food to appease his hunger, so the suffering man cannot be satisfied with clever words and analyses, rewards, promises, hope or trite advice, to appease the psychological darkness of fear, despair, confusion, hate, and so on. We know that food alone ends the gnawing pain of hunger. But we don’t know what ends the gnawing darkness of fear, hate, etc.

Isn’t the house burning? Isn’t the world in an ever-deepening crisis? Aren’t all of humanity’s personal, political, economic, religious, educational, structures - the totality of all of society’s relationships - fast disintegrating? Mankind clearly (it seems to me) can’t solve the crisis in the traditional ways, with the old approaches to action. Haven’t the old approaches created the crisis? So, even without knowing WHAT transformation actually is or how to bring it about, I say a total transformation is needed. I’m saying that there “must be” the ending of fear, confusion, hate, brutality, sorrow, despair, and so on, because the house is going up in flames. How this ending is to come about, I don't know. I'm not saying it CAN come about. I don't know if it can. Maybe it can't.

Where have I imagined transformation? Isn't some radically new kind of action needed?

If you feel that no transformation is needed, I won’t argue about it. I really don't know what is needed to be done.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sat, 11 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Nov 2017 #84
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 24 posts in this forum Offline

re 82:

Hello again Paul,

I think it is disingenuous of you to say that the analogy with plankton has thrown you into confusion. I’m clearly not likening man to plankton. I’m talking about man’s feeling of isolation, of disconnection from all that surrounds “him”. Plankton does not have ideas, including the idea that the sea is of no consequence to it. It is man who has ideas, beliefs, opinions, and so on.

Yes, we ARE talking about conditioned man. Conditioned man IS in relationship with his environment, but what is the nature of that relationship? His "relationship" to the environment is that he thinks he needs to overcome it just as he feels entitled to overcome his fellow man; he thinks his environment is something he is entitled to exploit and plunder for his convenience, pleasure, comfort and profit - drill the Earth to its innermost core and rape it, pollute its atmosphere, sell its waters, populate its skies with flying objects to kill his enemies (the others), industrialize agriculture ... and as K once said, go to the moon and play golf there.

So can it be said that man deeply understands the significance or consequences of these actions, this kind of "relationship"? Does man deeply understand that when he pollutes the Earth, he is polluting and destroying himself? Does man deeply understand that when he exploits and plunders others and his environment, he is destroying himself? I say he doesn’t. He thinks he is entitled and intelligent to act in this way and that it is improving his lot, improving his life, fulfilling himself ... that this is progress, that this is “adapting to his environment”. This is presently the nature of his "relationship" with his environment. He is not “adapting” to his environment. He is struggling to overcome and defeat it. He is not living in harmony inwardly or outwardly.

You say, “To break from cowardliness and hubris as well as from arrogance and ignorance is man's greatest challenge. I think that psychologically, it would take a revolution to make that break.” Isn’t that exactly what transformation means? Revolution!

You also say, “Unconditioned man is an idea.” Isn’t psychological revolution also an idea? And yet you are considering it. Why consider “revolution” and not “transformation”?

If psychological revolution is possible for the one, it is possible for the species. The one cannot do what the species cannot do. The one can only do what the species can do.

Added:

To be clear, what I say in connection with man’s relationship to his physical environment fully applies to the relationship to his social environment: man (woman) feels entitled to overcome his fellow man; he feels entitled to exploit, deceive, brutalize and plunder for his convenience, pleasure, comfort and profit.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sat, 11 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Nov 2017 #85
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 107 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Isn’t the house burning? Isn’t the world in an ever-deepening crisis? Aren’t all of humanity’s personal, political, economic, religious, educational, structures - the totality of all of society’s relationships - fast disintegrating?

It's an interesting idea. But is it so?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Nov 2017 #86
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 24 posts in this forum Offline

Is it an idea? Is it so? I don’t KNOW, Paul.

As I see it, there has been no revolution in the human mind since the ancient epochs. It seems that you also see it that way since you say that “it would take a revolution to make that break”, that “revolution is the only 'possible' answer”.

Man (woman) still approaches all his social, economic, political, personal relationships - through time and thought, through his attachment to ideas, ideals, beliefs, conclusions, certainty, comparisons, history.

And none of the structures that have evolved to regulate those relationships are providing man with the clarity of mind needed to solve his increasingly urgent problems. Those structures are perpetuating war, brutality, injustice, and enabling destruction. Those structures - which now include the factor of technology - are in themselves unwieldy, unbearable and unlivable. They are preventing anything new from taking place. They are preventing the flowering of creation which is needed for revolution or transformation to take place. Creation being the totally new, unrelated to what has gone “before”. Creation is revolution, transformation. However we call it, isn't that what is needed?

I also don’t have the clarity of mind that is needed.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Nov 2017 #87
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 107 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Creation being the totally new, unrelated to what has gone “before”. Creation is revolution, transformation. However we call it, isn't that what is needed?

May I point out that the mind that composed the above assertion is not new, not unrelated to what has gone before. It is itself the accumulation of the past. It has invented a concept of something called 'creation' but this invention is itself an extension of the old, though it purports to be the new.

Therefore I see this as a product of imagination and I cannot say that the imaginary thing is what is needed. The fact is that things carry on fairly much the same no matter how much we believe in this other thing.

I said that for humankind to overcome fear and greed would take a psychological revolution but I did not say that a psychological revolution was 'needed' per se, only that for greed and fear to end it would be necessary. It seems to me unproven that anything at all has made psychological revolution a necessity. I do not see it. As I said, evolution has not allowed for it and I cannot see any creative force outside of evolution that would provide for it.

If it were to happen it would solve the most pressing problems facing humankind.

This post was last updated by Paul David son Mon, 13 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Nov 2017 #88
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 24 posts in this forum Offline

Point out what you will. I see your response as a form of wallowing, intellectual game. It's too tiresome to engage. If I'm wrong, so be it.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Mon, 13 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Nov 2017 #89
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 107 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Is it an idea? Is it so? I don’t KNOW, Paul.

If the house is burning then it has been burning for centuries and more. As one end burns we build from the other and so it goes on, destroying what we create. Humanity is a slash and burn product of nature. It has survived and prospered up to now and though we are in a moment of extreme destructiveness, which is fairly obvious, it is not obvious to me that this phase of our history marks a terminal one for the species itself. I do not count out the possibility that we will reform the superficial aspects and recoup ourselves, as we have done time and again. Capitalism seems to be at a dead end and socialism would seem to depend upon the psychological revolution we have both alluded to or it descends back into capitalism again, in some form or another. I may be wrong of course.

Something is surely disintegrating, even if only at one end.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Nov 2017 #90
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 107 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Point out what you will. I see your response as a form of wallowing, intellectual game.

That is a reaction. The mind that wallows in its own imagination reacts against it being pointed out and becomes tired, I'm afraid. I am writing straightforwardly about what I see and I am questioning the products of imagination. That is not an intellectual game. But I understand your frustration.

This post was last updated by Paul David son Mon, 13 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 138 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.)