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

Evolution


Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 134 in total
Mon, 13 Nov 2017 #91
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 24 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote at 87:
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.

Of course it is not new or unrelated to what has gone before. But creation is not its invention. The universe is not its invention. Love is not its invention. The old mind can see its own limitations and it understands that there is such a thing as creation which is not engendered by the past. This "seeing" of its own limitations and "understanding" that creation exists is not itself rooted in the past.

Paul David son wrote at 89:
If the house is burning then it has been burning for centuries and more.

Of course it has been, accumulating all along. The accumulation of millenia cannot be compared to the accumulation of, say, 100 years. It is now like the typhoonigator. It cannot hold "more". The unwieldiness of that multi-millenial accumulation is one factor in the urgency. Another factor is "advances" in technology.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Nov 2017 #92
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 16 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
But creation is not its invention. The universe is not its invention. Love is not its invention.

Hi Huguette, is it not that what you call as universe/love/creation etc is intuitively acknowledged, what is called as "understanding such a thing exists" is the intuitive acknowledgement of their existence. I think what needs be intuitively grasped is what it demands of us, which confirms and grounds their existence in actuality.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Nov 2017 #93
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 103 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
what is called as "understanding such a thing exists" is the intuitive acknowledgement of their existence.

"Krishnamurti: What do you mean by intuition? What does intuition mean to you all? You say it is something which we feel instinctively without going through the process of logical reason: a ''hunch,'' as the Americans would say. Now I really question whether your intuition is real or merely the glorified unconscious hopes; subtle, deceitful longings. You know, when you hear reincarnation spoken of, or you hear a lecturer talk about reincarnation, or you read of it in a book, and you jump to it and say, ''I feel it is true, it must be,'' you call that intuition. Is it really intuition, or is it the hope that you will have another opportunity to live next life; therefore you cling to it, and call it intuition? Wait a minute. I am not denying that there is intuition, but what the average person, what the usual person calls intuition, that is not true, that is something without reason, validity, without understanding behind it."

Verbatim Reports of Talks and Answers to Questions by Krishnamurti Auckland, New Zealand 1934

Talk to Theosophists, Auckland

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Nov 2017 #94
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 103 posts in this forum Offline

Eleventh Talk in Madras 1952

What do we mean by intuition? Don't introduce what other people say. You use that word intuition. What is an intuitive feeling? Whether it is right or wrong, you have a feeling that it must be so or it must not be so. By intuitive feeling, we mean a feeling that is not rationalized, that is not very logically thought out, a feeling which you ascribe to beyond the mind, which you call a flash from higher consciousness. We are not seeing if there is intuition or not, but we want to find out the truth of it.

First of all, it is very easy to deceive oneself, is it not? I have an intuitive feeling that reincarnation is true. Don't you have it? Not because you have read about it, but you have a feeling about it; your intuition says so, and you grant it. I am only taking that as an example; we are not considering the truth of the matter whether there is or there is not continuity. Now, what is involved in the intuitive feeling? Your hope, your desire, continuity, fear, despair, feeling of emptiness, loneliness, all these are driving you; all these urge you to hold on to the idea of reincarnation. So, your own desire unconsciously projects that intuitive feeling. Without understanding this whole process of desire, you cannot depend on intuition which may be extraordinarily deceptive. In some cases, intuition is deceptive. Don't talk about scientists having intuitive perception of a problem; you are not scientists. We are just ordinary people with our everyday problems. The scientists work impersonally about a mathematical problem; they work at it, work at it, can't see an answer and then let it go. As they work, they suddenly see the answer, and that is their intuition. But we don't tackle our problems that way. We are too intimate with our problems; we are confined, limited by our own desires, and our own desires dictate, consciously or unconsciously, the attitude, the response, the reaction. We use the word intuition in this connection.

Understanding is the whole perception of the problem - which is understanding the desire and the ways it acts. When you understand, you will see there is no entity as the examiner who is looking at the examined problem. This understanding is not intuition. This understanding is the seeing of the process of how the desire works, entirely, not just at the superficial level; it is going completely into the thing, in which every possibility of deception is revealed.

Understanding is an integrated process whereas intuition, as we use it, is departmental. The latter operates occasionally; the rest of the time, we are all stupid. What is the good of having such intuition? One moment, you see things clearly, and for the rest of the time, you are just the old, stupid entity that you were. Understanding is an integrated process, functioning all the time, and that comes into being when we are aware of the total process of desire.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Nov 2017 #95
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 103 posts in this forum Offline

Third Talk in Sydney, 1955

Krishnamurti: Please, when we talk about intuition, the inner voice, what do we mean by that? The inner voice may be entirely false. Please, I am not trying to destroy your intuition. I am trying to find out whether intuition is true or false. Surely, until you understand the whole process of desire, conscious as well as unconscious, you cannot rely on intuition because desire may bring you to certain ''facts'' which are not facts at all. The unconscious desire to be or not to be something makes you accept or reject; therefore, you must first understand the whole process of your desire and not say, ' 'Intuition tells me this is true.''

Let me take a very simple example, and you will see it. We all die, fortunately or unfortunately, and my desire for continuity is very strong, as it is in most people. When I hear the word reincarnation, my intuition says, ''Yes, that is true.'' But is it my intuition, or my desire? My desire to continue is so embedded, so strong, that it takes the form of so-called intuition, which has no meaning at all.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Nov 2017 #96
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 103 posts in this forum Offline

Second Question & Answer Meeting at Brockwood Park 30 August 1979

And the questioner asks also: is it intuition? That word 'intuition' is rather a tricky word because many of us use that word. The actuality of intuition may be the result of desire. One may desire something and then a few days later you have an intuition about it. And you think that intuition is most extraordinarily important. But if you go into it rather deeply you may find that it is based on desire, on fear, on various forms of pleasure. So one is rather doubtful about that word, specially used by those people who are rather romantic, who are rather imaginative, sentimental and wanting something. And they would certainly have intuitions, but it may be based on some obvious self-deceptive desire. So for the moment we can put aside intuition, that word. I hope I am not hurting anybody who is caught in intuitions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Nov 2017 #97
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 103 posts in this forum Offline

First Public Question & Answer Meeting in Saanen

July 1981

What do we mean by intuition? Having a hunch, having a feeling that is the right thing. And intuition is also, having been sensitive, capturing something which may be conditioned, which may be personal, which may be a desire, wish-fulfilment. And we must be clear and hesitant in using that word 'intuition' , because it may be one's own unconscious desire, one's own longing for something to happen, or sudden feeling that it is the right thing to do.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Nov 2017 #98
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 103 posts in this forum Offline

Apols for the number of quotes. The reason is that 'intuition' does not mean that what one intuits is necessarily true. The intuition that the universe was created from nothing is itself a creation from something. The intuition that there is something called love which comes from nowhere, comes from somewhere. This is not an intellectual game, it is the facing of reality wherever unreality takes hold.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Nov 2017 #99
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 24 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
But creation is not its invention. The universe is not its invention. Love is not its invention.

natarajan shivan wrote at 92:
Hi Huguette, is it not that what you call as universe/love/creation etc is intuitively acknowledged, what is called as "understanding such a thing exists" is the intuitive acknowledgement of their existence. I think what needs be intuitively grasped is what it demands of us, which confirms and grounds their existence in actuality.

Natarajan,

When it comes to communicating one's direct perception or understanding to another, words fail us here, don't they? Neither "understanding" nor "intuition" is quite satisfactory.

And yet we want to convey something to each other that is seen, lived. It is clear to this particular mind, this particular brain, that the physical universe is not its creation. It is clear to this particular mind that love is not summoned at "my" bidding and that there is such a thing as love. If it is clear to "this" particular mind and to "that" particular mind - "your" mind and "my" mind - then do we understand each other?

But does the mind's limitations mean that it is beyond human capability for one human being to understand another? Isn't that what love and compassion "allow"?

I do not see communication or "communion" as an impossibility. I could be mistaken.

Added:

Still, doesn't Paul have a good point? Why reject "understanding" in favour of "intuition"? Isn't understanding more accurate?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Nov 2017 #100
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 103 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Why reject "understanding" in favour of "intuition"? Isn't understanding more accurate?

Then what is the difference between intuition and understanding? I can give a simple example: Not knowing anything about the solar system we may intuitively grasp that the sun goes around the Earth. Now I'll give another example: Not knowing about the origins of the universe we may intuitively grasp that it has been created from nothing.

But really, had the universe been created from nothing one would still have to suppose a pre-existing force that created the universe 'from nothing.' Seeing the contradiction in this one may understand what one's intuition lacks in the order of its understanding.

Intuition fills in the gaps between what one knows in order to give a reasonable explanation. Intuition is a marvelous thing for guiding exploration and experimentation towards verifiable conclusions but intuition itself provides no verifiable conclusions, which is why one should not believe in its leaps of faith. In the end, one understands that intuition is nothing but a facet of imagination. It may guide but it is unwise to conclude.

I asked my four-year-old grand-daughter yesterday, "Yasmin, can you help me to understand something please?"

She pricked up her ears and agreed to help.

"What I want to know is, that thing up there in the sky, the thing you call the moon, what is it exactly? Do you know?"

"Grandpa Paul," she answered with a sort of exasperated smile, "Don't you know? The moon is the moon."

"Oh," I said, "I think I get it. But what about that other thing that comes up in the day."

"Vovo Paul," she said laughing (we were conducting the conversation in Portuguese), "That is the sun. The sun is the sun and the moon is the moon."

"Ok," I said, "But one thing I don't understand. From where does the moon get its light? It's night time, right?"

She laughed and went away. She came back several minutes later having intuited the answer. (Having asked no one) "The moon gets its light from the sun, Vovo."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 14 Nov 2017 #101
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 103 posts in this forum Offline

The plasticity of the brain is something natural evolution handed down to us. How we go from there is to do with the history of our social evolution. Here is a very interesting talk about brain plasticity, attachment and suffering.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbiWLLYSZhc

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Nov 2017 #102
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 16 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Isn't that what love and compassion "allow"?

I do not see communication or "communion" as an impossibility.

Yes, but we all need be more aware when we accuse the other of a 'self' or as a manifestation of it's varied expressions. As I see, that is when we knowingly or unknowingly create a division as a separate observer and yet talk of a possibility of communion.

Huguette . wrote:
Still, doesn't Paul have a good point? Why reject "understanding" in favour of "intuition"? Isn't understanding more accurate?

Yes, I am in agreement with his points, intuition can't replace understanding, but, as I see could aid it, by basing itself as much as possible in the reality of relationship.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Nov 2017 #103
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 103 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
we all need be more aware when we accuse the other of a 'self'

"Hell is other people" Sartre.

natarajan shivan wrote:
intuition can't replace understanding, but, as I see could aid it, by basing itself as much as possible in the reality of relationship.

Natarajan, intuition is based upon the power of the mind to make associations. It is not a thing-in-itself that can decide what to base its movement upon. It is part of what we call imagination. Intuition comes in when we close the gap between two clues. Suddenly an understandable pattern appears in our mind. We say, "That must be it." If we trust our intuitions it is like trusting our emotions. I'll go into it a little more.

When we consciously close the gaps between the known and the known we do not call it intuition, we call it hypothesis and because we see what the mind has done in a arriving at a hypothesis we know that 'trust' is the wrong relation to the hypothesis and instead we test it out in some way. Because it has been arrived at consciously, through the power of consideration, we can go back through the steps the mind has taken and see if they were valid or if something has been missed.

With regard intuition however, this happens at a level where the mind is not self-conscious of its own movement. It often arrives at a conclusion (or 'hunch,' as K put it above) without the mediation of thinking and consideration, but it is still thought, as it works at an unconscious level. We do not see the actions of the mind when it arrives at the idea that has formed unconsciously (without the aid of self-reflection). We do not understand where the 'intuition' has come from. People used to think it was the voice of God or of the ancestors. But it was still thought, which does not only work through words and in a linear fashion but can also work 'randomly' and through symbolic associations. But it is still thought and it still takes the form of imaginary linkages.

Thought predates thinking. Thinking is merely the self-reflective action of a mind in thought. Intuition is the unconscious imagination making associations and delivering them suddenly to the self-conscious level where they appear as revelations, which gives them a sort of authority. I say, question the authority but use intuition as a tool, as a clue, a pointer, as to what to look at or look for, not as literal truth, no matter how strongly the intuition bursts upon one. Deal with intuition as one would with hypothesis, don't romanticise intuition, just because it is arrived at unconsciously.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 16 Nov 2017 #104
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 16 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
If we trust our intuitions it is like trusting our emotions.

Consider the role intuition plays in sustaining a dialogue, as I see, it is that which helps to reduce the problem of two selves battling it out to prove their respective points into a singular problem of progressively filtering out 'self' as 'one entity' between the two which prevents communication/communion. Intuition does that by making it possible, at least to the one, to know how the other thinks/feels and therefore reacts to every spoken word and at the same time being aware of one's own tendencies to make conclusions. Trusting emotions is slightly different as it has got the tendency to damage either one's own or other's viewpoint, say by concluding that it is the self of the other, or it's the dooms mongering of the other, or say by concluding that the other/or oneself is the evil, and therefore walking away with the notion that that is what is preventing the communication.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 Nov 2017 #105
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 103 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
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.

"As long as we think in terms of transformation, there cannot be transformation, either now or hereafter."

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day | Nov 17, 2017

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 Nov 2017 #106
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 103 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
Consider the role intuition plays in sustaining a dialogue

Yes, and also in sustaining argument. One intuits what the other means and responds from that intuition, even if it is completely wrong. Worse than that, one calls one's intuition "reading between the lines" and by that understands "intelligence," 'inter-liger.'

This post was last updated by Paul David son Fri, 17 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 Nov 2017 #107
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 24 posts in this forum Offline

re 105:

Huguette . wrote:
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.

Paul David son wrote:
"As long as we think in terms of transformation, there cannot be transformation, either now or hereafter."
Krishnamurti Quote of the Day | Nov 17, 2017

I'm not thinking in terms of transformation. To think in terms of transformation means that whatever I do is done with an eye on the goal of transformation. I only said transformation is needed, that's all.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Nov 2017 #108
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 103 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I'm not thinking in terms of transformation. To think in terms of transformation means that whatever I do is done with an eye on the goal of transformation. I only said transformation is needed, that's all.

I don't understand how saying transformation is needed is not thinking in terms of transformation, Huguette.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Nov 2017 #109
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 24 posts in this forum Offline

re 108:

Paul,

To think in terms of transformation means that whatever I do is done with an eye on the goal of transformation. That is, whatever I do is done in terms of my goal, I situate whatever I do within my framework for transformation, I reference it to my goal: does it contribute to eventual transformation, is it compatible with what I need to do in order to achieve transformation. As I see it, that's what it means to think in terms of anything, transformation for example.

If I’m a professional athlete, at least immediately before an event or maybe all the time, I think in terms of winning - eat the right foods, do the proper scientific workouts, sleep the right amount of hours, don’t take alcohol or drugs, sex or no sex, and so on. Whatever I do, I think in terms of winning.**

If a farmer sees and says that rain is needed for his crops, that doesn’t mean he has a "goal" of making it rain and that all his actions are determined by his “goal”. Can he have such a goal? Does he have the power to make it rain? He can't, but he can see that rain is needed for his crops.

You said at 82: “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.” It would take a revolution, you said. Does that mean that you think in terms of bringing about a psychological revolution in yourself? It's an observation not a goal.

That’s the best I can explain what I mean.

Added:

**Or if one thinks in terms of psychological evolution, that thinking or point of view distorts perception so that one cannot observe clearly, innocently.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sun, 19 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Nov 2017 #110
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 103 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
If a farmer sees and says that rain is needed for his crops, that doesn’t mean he has a "goal" of making it rain and that all his actions are determined by his “goal”.

Of course not. I get your point. However, I wonder if you see how the word "needed" is used here in conjunction with "for his crops." Which is to say, where there is a need one has to specify its relation to the outcome. In this case, for crops to grow rain is needed. The growing of the crops is the condition for which rain is 'needed.' In other words, 'needs' are always conditioned in advance by their outcomes. I wonder if you see then that the conditioning process is that of thought. Thought projects an outcome and then the condition in which the outcome will be fulfilled.

And there lies the difference between what you wrote and what I wrote. I did not say that man needs transformation. I said that in order for man to end his greed and fear a psychological revolution would be needed. I included the outcome and only addressed the need in relation to that particular, projected outcome.

But when you wrote: "I only said transformation is needed, that's all," the need was not clearly related to a specific, projected outcome. I think you were suggesting in other places that we have reached a sort of tipping point and that the "need" was related to that. If that is the case one could summarize the view by saying, if humanity cannot rapidly overcome itself it will extinguish itself. You brought in K's 'the house is burning' statement and also mentioned technology and so on and said there was an 'urgency' different to what went before.

My understanding (or misunderstanding) of K's point is that there is this urgency, but that there has always been this urgency: the house is burning but the house has always been burning - at least ever since the supposed "wrong turn." He asked us to feel the urgency within ourselves, directly, rather than in relation to environmental issues and so on. He was saying that the issue of psychological revolution (or transformation - they are the same) is deeper than conjunctural reality. Suffering is a chronic condition, however 'acute' the symptoms may feel at any particular point in history. The need he pointed to was to end suffering in oneself and thereby in the world. The outcome he projected was 'life,' something he said we were incapable of fully experiencing due to our present condition.

What I am wary of, Huguette, and this is the reason I have tried to go deeper into the question, is turning 'need' into some sort of independent external factor, as if humanity 'needs' to exist at all, as if there is something called 'nature' that has a plan of some sort that we are a rolling part of. Life has no purpose, except those purposes which are its conditions of existence. Life is not a purpose, it is a pattern and an impulse. Other than that there is no 'need' for it at all.

Just to end by going back to your sentence I quoted at the top: The crops have no need to grow. The farmer's need for the crops to grow is conditioned by his/her mode of existence. S/he has taken out a bank loan and owes the seed-manufacturer and has to bring in a crop in order to meet his/her debts, sell the crop and provide for the family. Were the crop to fail (which they do) the farmer would not die (in present circumstances) but would sell or give up the land and move to the city to find work, which is what has been happening for two hundred years. The rain has no need to fall. The crop has no need to grow. The farmer has no need to continue as a farmer, beyond those manufactured by him/herself and the society s/he has been conditioned by.

This post was last updated by Paul David son Sun, 19 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Nov 2017 #111
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 24 posts in this forum Offline

Paul,

Does your granddaughter not need air, food, water to live? She doesn’t need to live, the starving children of the world don’t need to live. Isn't that what the intellect says? Don’t you “want” them to live, to thrive, to be happy? Don’t you “want” an end to the wars they are forced to endure? This “want” is not self-centred desire but love, pure and simple, isn’t it?

Humanity has a multitude of problems in every sphere of relationship - interpersonal, environmental, economic, political, religious, educational, etc. Until and including now, man’s only response to these problems has come from his one and only mind - which is the conditioned mind, the mind which perceives and deals with the world through the known and time. There has been no other approach to the action of solving problems and, until and including now, the mind cannot even conceive of any other approach, of an altogether NEW type of approach. We-you-I-they SEE this state of affairs and still turn to the old tried-and-untrue “methods” to solve all these problems, which is the way of the intellect.

So, notwithstanding what you say, the heart which is not bridled by the intellect sees that transformation of the mind and the world is needed. The universe may not need it - but even then, who knows. Can the limited mind be sure?

As I see it, the world and the mind are both the cause and the effect of the problems. The world one is born into causes the state of the mind and the mind, which is thus shaped by the world, causes the state of the world. So the state of the world is the effect of the mind and the state of the mind is the effect of the world. The “outside” is in the state it is in BECAUSE of the inner condition, and the “inside” is in the state it is BECAUSE of the outside condition.

Being conflicted, contradictory, divided, afraid, greedy, conceited, violent, the inner state is responsible for the outer condition of injustice, war, corruption, conflict in the political, economic, religious, educational, family structures and interpersonal relationships.

So as I see it, the mind in its present condition cannot possibly conceive of a true solution to humanity's problems. Nor can the existing political, religious, family structures solve our problems through force, cleverness, committees, commissions, further studies, time and legislation. But at the root of both the outer and the inner chaos is the illusion of self and time, which is the present condition of the mind. No? So a transformation of the mind is needed, a new mind is needed to solve mankind's problems. The old mind can only prolong the chaos. It can do nothing else.

To me, this observation that it is the inner state which creates the outer chaos is the first and only step that “I” (the mind) can "take". It still doesn’t know what to do about anything, doesn’t know what to do next, but to see THIS IS TRULY revolutionary. A true break with the past. Isn't it? In the past, I have thought in terms of what “I” should do, what action "I" should take in order to live in this corrupt, brutal, rotten world. I thought that if I thought hard and long enough, if I tried hard enough, I could come up with a plan for living and maybe even save the world! That is, the mind thought that IT could determine what action was needed, what right action was. Now the mind sees that something totally new, totally revolutionary - a true transformation, a total destruction of the old ways of action, of our dependence on the past - is needed to truly solve our problems.

But if you feel that your granddaughter, and all the children and all their relatives - do not "need" to breathe, eat and drink, and that they do not need an end to brutality, what can I say?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sun, 19 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Nov 2017 #112
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 103 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Does your granddaughter not need air, food, water to live?

Yes, in fact all three do . . . to live. Air, food and water are conditions of life. Transformation is not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Nov 2017 #113
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 103 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
She doesn’t need to live, the starving children of the world don’t need to live. Isn't that what the intellect says?

Yes, that is intellect, but it is nevertheless true.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Nov 2017 #114
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 103 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Don’t you “want” them to live, to thrive, to be happy? Don’t you “want” an end to the wars they are forced to endure?

Yes, this is emotion. It is not a question of truth but of feeling and of meaning. What I 'want' or 'not want' is emotion/feeling. It is the inner.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Nov 2017 #115
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 103 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
This “want” is not self-centred desire but love, pure and simple, isn’t it?

I question the concept of "pure and simple love." I find myself asking, what does Huguette mean when she uses that expression. What does it signify for her?

I have always, ever since I remember, questioned the use of this term 'love.' I questioned it at a very early age, in respect of what I was supposed to feel for my parents. It seemed to me to be a sort of moral obligation and was therefore pretty much another type of charade. In my late teens I had deeply meaningful conversations about it as a term for describing all that goes with sexual relationship and pairing. Then came the 1960's when there was such a lot of talk of something called transcendental love. I read Eric Fromm on it. I went to see Osho in 1972 when I was part of a hippie Commune in London. But all the talk of the dawning of a new age left me cold. I could see such a lot of bs about it.

The word has no magic left for me, however much you use it. However, I still use it. To me it means to affirm an affective relationship, a feeling of care and commitment, a desire to empathize and understand and also the existence of an emotional bond or bonding. All these things are part of the material world, not 'other.' Let me ask, how can we love one and not the other? Is love really something that stretches itself infinitely, in one's life? It is so easy to adopt the pose that one's love encompasses the universe but the underside of that is a sort of self-violence, a suppressed duality because we do not love the universe and probably cannot. The love we actually have is built from the ground up, not bestowed from the heavens.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Nov 2017 #116
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 103 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
So, notwithstanding what you say, the heart which is not bridled by the intellect sees that transformation of the mind and the world is needed. The universe may not need it - but even then, who knows. Can the limited mind be sure?

Yes, but be concrete. The 'heart' is a metaphor for our ability to feel and to emote from that feeling. The intellect is our capacity to reason. K points out that the heart is in fact 'bridled by the intellect.' We feel according to the history of our experience. We think from the same. The relationship between feeling and thinking is reciprocal and even from infancy, symbiotic. The 'heart' and 'mind' are inextricably linked as one movement, not two. While the feeling of need is indeed a feeling, not an intellectual stance, it is still a product of thought or as K put it, of thought/feeling, which Bohm pointed out was a system. This is why you were correct to end on a question . . . "Can the limited mind be sure?" No, it cannot. It cannot be sure if the universe needs human transformation just as it cannot be sure if the human needs transformation. Why? Because it, itself, does not know what this transformation is, though it has either invented the term or given meaning to a term it has heard.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Nov 2017 #117
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 103 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
So as I see it, the mind in its present condition cannot possibly conceive of a true solution to humanity's problems.

That is a fact but look what has also happened. The mind that "cannot possibly conceive of a true solution to humanity's problems" has just invented the solution, which it calls 'transformation.'

Huguette . wrote:
a new mind is needed to solve mankind's problems

Here, the 'new mind' has been invented and waits in the wings to be called on stage.

There remains an essential difference between conjecturing on the one hand that for this to happen, that would be needed and on the other hand saying it is possible. I could say that for pigs to be able to fly they would first need to grow wings and then perhaps slim a little. But were I too say that pigs need to grow wings so that they can fly, I have to also explain why they need to fly.

Humanity has continued to exist and 'prosper' despite not being transformed. There is no reason to believe it will not carry on in the same way for a future that for our limited vision would seem to be indefinite. You or I might feel and might say that it would do humanity a whole lot of good to transform and would do the other species it shares its world with a whole lot of good too. That is one thing. And I'm sure we both feel that. But it is not humanity's existential need.

From the feeling of 'good,' one views the prospect of transformation as a tantalizing possibility. It would be the 'good,' were it possible. One does not know if it is possible. One has no means to effect it. Having reached the rock face, one stops pushing.

This post was last updated by Paul David son Sun, 19 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Nov 2017 #118
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 24 posts in this forum Offline

I have no argument with you, Paul. If you’re happy, content and satisfied in accepting the intellect as the only and final authority in matters of relationship, if you equate intellect with intelligence, if you equate emotion with love, if you understand all there is to understand about human capacity and nature, I don’t want to convince you otherwise. I could be mistaken. Maybe the intellect CAN solve humanity’s problems, but I don't accept your interpretations and conclusions as fact. To me, intellect is not intelligence, emotion and sentimentality are not love or heart and intellect cannot prove truth in matters of action and relationship.

You think you are pointing to facts but, as I see it, you are pointing to ideas and interpretations, and you clearly feel the same about what I say. For me, none of what you say sheds any light on the human condition and clearly vice-versa.

I see the intellect as being only a part of human capacity, a part of being human, not the whole. I see the intellect as only one element of the human being. As I see it, the intellect, acting on its own separate from the whole, is the source of humanity's problems, all while thinking that it is the sole arbiter and agent of "truth and understanding". To me, truth and understanding are not the action of the intellect.

I think that every human being wants to be happy. Can a happy human being be brutal, greedy, deceitful, afraid? Is happiness merely an intellectual concept? Maybe nothing can make man happy but what is clear to me is that the intellect can't.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sun, 19 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Nov 2017 #119
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 103 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
If you’re happy, content and satisfied in accepting the intellect as the only and final authority in matters of relationship,

I neither accepted it as the only OR as the final authority, Huguette. Relationship is largely to do with feelings but it is constantly mediated by intellect (reason). Of course, some people are habitually unreasonable so we can;t generalise too much.

Huguette . wrote:
if you equate intellect with intelligence,

Nowhere have I done that. Intelligence is a natural capacity of mind, whether it is drawn through feeling/emotion, instinct, movement or intellect.

Huguette . wrote:
if you equate emotion with love

Not at all. Emotion is not love, though love, as we actually experience 'it' is certainly a facet of feeling. To 'emote' is to communicate feeling. But I have explained in more detail above what I feel about the word 'love.'

Huguette . wrote:
if you understand all there is to understand about human capacity and nature

I have never said I did and I don't. Do you?

Huguette . wrote:
To me, intellect is not intelligence, emotion and sentimentality are not love or heart and intellect cannot prove truth in matters of action and relationship.

But here, you see, you are creating a straw man. I never said those things.

Huguette . wrote:
none of what you say sheds any light on the human condition

That is an extreme statement but, if true, you seem to be walled in.

Huguette . wrote:
and clearly vice-versa

No, you have said things that have shed light.

Huguette . wrote:
As I see it, the intellect, acting on its own separate from the whole, is the source of humanity's problems

Well, since you have the 'source' pinned down, you will not listen to anything that contradicts your view, it seems. For me, I do not see intellect as acting on its own. I do not see it counterposed to what you have called 'heart.' As I wrote, I see a symbiotic relationship between two modes of operating, each acting on the other and building each other up. It seems to me that K saw things in this way also. Heart and mind are not two separate things and cannot act separately in the way you are posing it. They are two modes within the same operating system. K called it 'thought/feeling.'

Huguette . wrote:
Maybe nothing can make man happy but what is clear to me is that the intellect can't.

Nor can feeling/emotion make humankind 'happy.' No one has said that intellect can make humankind happy.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Nov 2017 #120
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 103 posts in this forum Offline

A couple of questions the conversation above raised for me:


  1. What is of more value in a conversation, the shedding of new light or the raising of new and valid questions?


  2. Has subjectivity evolved, in line with the evolution of life?


Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 134 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.)