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

Evolution


Displaying posts 121 - 148 of 148 in total
Mon, 20 Nov 2017 #121
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 12 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
Has subjectivity evolved, in line with the evolution of life?

As I see, subjectivity can't evolve, it is characterized only by the response-ability to the demands of a situation, without qualifying the action as good/bad/right/wrong/desirable etc, but nevertheless purpose can be attributed without creating a contradiction. To negate a purpose is in a sense the suppressing of choice without understanding/seeing and to that extent an evil. Overall, the question seems like an attempt to straighten out paradoxes using words. There is no evolving of subjectivity but rather a growing of memory (innate memory as Dr Gabor in the link you shared talked about, without the needing of a recall but yet remembered) as a part of wholeness in meeting the situation.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 20 Nov 2017 #122
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 12 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
What is of more value in a conversation, the shedding of new light or the raising of new and valid questions?

Deep listening, as everything gets revealed.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 20 Nov 2017 #123
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
As I see, subjectivity can't evolve . . . but rather a growing of memory (innate memory . . .

I was thinking not in terms of human subjectivity but of subjectivity in the evolution of life as a whole. I am not trying to resolve any contradiction. It just occurred to me that, for instance, a tree must have a certain subjectivity for its roots to find the way to water. The slime mold uses something biologists call 'quorum sensing' to re-unite with itself periodically. Each cell in our body has minute life-forms called mitochondria to power it. Do the mitochondria have subjectivity?

One might put it that subjectivity is a common factor in life (as a qualia) but that as the machinery of life develops as life evolves in ever more complex forms, the factor of subjectivity becomes of increasing importance, power and consequence. In which case the difference with 'man' is that 'he' becomes consciously aware of his subjectivity. It turns back and becomes aware of itself as a factor, a key mover in the whole.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 20 Nov 2017 #124
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
Deep listening, as everything gets revealed.

A good slogan :-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 20 Nov 2017 #125
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 12 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
A good slogan :-)

I am not sure Paul, about, what place cynicism and distrust of other has in discussion forums like this. The act of discerning what is one's own or other's contradiction and deception is best left to what is generally called as 'conscience'. As I see, it has to make it's own attempts and define purposes until the energy involved in the process allows for a seeing of what K often says as the insight of 'observer is the observed'.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 20 Nov 2017 #126
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
I am not sure Paul, about, what place cynicism and distrust of other has in discussion forums like this.

It is not a question of cynicism or distrust. A mind that is capable of a listening of such depth that nothing could be hidden from it either exists or it does not. Which is it?

This post was last updated by Paul David son Mon, 20 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Nov 2017 #127
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

Oh, I was going back to look at your post and follow the citation, John. Difficult when you delete your posts so often. I wonder if you see that?

Anyhow, back to this question about the evolution of subjectivity:

It seems to me that a basic difference between live and inert forms is that life, in all its forms, includes an internal, motivational dynamic. Inert forms also have there own internal dynamics, molecules disintegrate or otherwise change according to the internal processes. Stars form from clouds of gases etc etc. But, generally speaking, there is this other thing with life, that it has a purpose in continuing and in replicating itself, its pattern. A star does not have that.

The existence of internal motivation as a key determinant in the patterned dynamic we call life is what defines it as such. It is a material pattern that is programmed to extend itself indefinitely. That is its dynamic. This movement of self-affirmation is what I am here referring to as subjectivity for the life-form is more than an object, being moved by other objects or forces outside of itself. It also has this internal dynamic that causes it to move in relative autonomy to the forces that also move it externally. In order to extend itself (live and reproduce) the life form benefits to the extent in can adapt itself to the external forces. Therefore, in spite of it having the aspect of relative autonomy, it also internalises the external in order to successfully adapt to its changing environment. It does this during its own lifetime, through what we may call 'education' and via reproduction, which we call 'evolution.'

The subjective motivational force or 'push' of each life form does not stop it being part and parcel of the whole fabric. But the degree to which a life form can adapt itself through learning, to its changing environment in its own lifetime creates difference degrees of sensitivity, response and responsibility. As that advances, due to the evolutionary process, any particular species becomes not only more responsive but also more subjective. That is the contention I was expressing. And when, as with the human being, that level of responsive subjectivity reaches a certain high point, their arises the feeling that this 'subjectivity' is all there is; that the subject controls his or her body, his or her thoughts. For this to occur there must be developed the ability of the creature to reflect on its own subjectivity, its own mental responsiveness and to whatever extent, control or direct it towards now conscious purposes. The creature then feels superior to its own nature, which is perverse.

Yet, here we are, discussing all this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 Nov 2017 #128
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

Well John, you deleted again but I happened to be at home when you posted so I did get a chance to look at the citation on this occasion. In case anyone else wants to follow it I will copy the link here. It is for In The Presence of Krishnamurti: The Memoirs of Mary Zimbalist & Mary Zimbalist's Unfinished Book - as told to Scott Forbes. But unfortunately you did not give a specific citation or even a chapter so unless I wished to spend days reading and going through I would probably not find it, especially as you were not clear what had even been said. Ie. "Rosalind kicked him in the groins or tried to kill him with a large stone." Which was it, a kick or a stone? In any case, I am happy to have read Radha's firsthand account of seeing her mother empty a plate of spaghetti over the K head. It probably deserved it. She didn't mention the sauce. But she also said she had see K grab Rajagopal by the throat on one occasion. K himself said something like, "I have only been angry once and the fellow involved never let me forget it."

It's all a little off-subject however. Let's try to get back to evolution and the teaching, if we may. The point was that we, who are not transformed, would only be guessing were we to conclude K's state, either way. But the revolution, in the terms of which he spoke of it, has little to do with evolution, which as he pointed out is a process concerning time.

With regard myself, thought and thinking is evolving but there is a deep structure I observe which does not seem to evolve and it is to do with my initial conditioning and it is a powerful factor at the level of emotion and feeling. To put it concisely, my thinking evolves largely according to a robust, underlying, emotional template there since an early age. I cannot see how thinking, whatever direction it takes, can do much about that template. One should not be totally fatalistic about it but one should admit one does not know.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 Nov 2017 #129
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Well, Paul, I would say that most earthlings don't really care to 'reflect on their subjectivity'

You have taken the meaning wrongly, John. How I meant it was the following: Conscious thinking involves the mind in reflecting its own processes. It is as if the mind constructs a loop and can look back at itself. I will give an everyday (every second) example. When you are writing it is not completely 'automatic.' It involves a certain sense of checking each word and phrase as it arises from the depths and keeping the thought linear, on track, consistent (as much as is possible), free of obvious contradiction and taking the direction that gives the most comfortable result. It is what K calls the controller and the censor. What is happening is something like a quality control element, an 'eye in the sky.' This is what I call 'self-reflection' with regard the mind and its thinking process. This self-reflectiveness is the essence of the conscious part of mentation, the rest being seemingly 'below the surface,' ie. not subject to the scrutiny of conscious deliberation.

What you were referring to, I believe, is the ability to reflect upon our reflective abilities (which we are doing now). This, I agree, is something most people probably do not do very much, if at all.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 Nov 2017 #130
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
The sum total of these self-centred interactions is generating our ' evolutionary consciousness ' and at this point in time we can see rather clearly its dominant trend of self-interest & vulgarity. Which, in conjunction with the constant depletion of the natural ressources of the planet...cannot really go very far. So this global 'evolution' contains the seeds of its own 'involution' ( not to say...of its own self- destruction)

I agree with the first sentence, John. But from the word 'which' you move from direct observation of the present state to projecting a future. I simply do not know how far the time-bound evolution of thought might go. It might go on for decades before a final calamity or it might continue for millennia, always finding a way out, as has happened up to now. The problem with thought posing a trajectory and coming to a conclusion is that though thought moves in a linear direction on the basis of a few chosen points of reference, actuality is always concrete (grown together) and thought cannot take this concreteness in its fullness. Though abstracts what it considers significant and creates a trajectory of future events as if there would be no confounding variables. Actuality confounds speculation at every step, however. So when you write "cannot really go very far" you do so from what? Are you aware of the key points your thought has projected a future from? The points it has chosen may be valid but will they go straight to their imagined conclusion (doom of mankind) or will other, unimagined factors, intercede?

For instance, you mention the "constant depletion of natural resources of the planet" as a key factor in your projection. Yet the history of though is also one of replacing one resource with another, a natural one with a manufactured one. The production of solar panels is a case in point. Or, the replacement of rubber with plastic. Now we have even newer materials such as graphene. One thing we cannot deplete is water, though we may contaminate it we cannot lose it. Thought comes in and finds new ways to purify water. So that I think the question of resources may not be a key determinant in our doom. Jsst an example of how linear thinking may lead one astray.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 Nov 2017 #131
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
So the truly long term, solution for this vast global challenge has to be worked out inwardly

Yes, but I would put in an 'if' rather than a 'has to.'

If there is to be a long term solution then it would have to involve psychological transformation. Otherwise, we are simply moving from one problem to the next, each leading to the next.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 01 Dec 2017 #132
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

"I teach you the ubermensch. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the ubermensch: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment.” (Friedrich Nietzsche – Thus Spoke Zarathustra)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 02 Dec 2017 #133
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Yes, so he did. But then...didn't Nietzsche himself end up up in a mad house ?

Well, we all ended up here.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Dec 2017 #134
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

Well, after a spate of postings and deletions of postings between Dan and John there is little chance for anyone else to come in on what they wrote, which is such a pity. I saw earlier that they had been conversing about the 'Buddha' and personally I would have liked to come back and consider what they were saying. Oh well. A strange forum this.

John Raica wrote:
Now, in my humble 'meditational' experience

I think K would have pointed out that experience is never 'humble.'

I really don't know what John is writing about as his partial quotes of Dan relate to now deleted posts and cannot be put into context. One is left with soundbytes. It reminds me of students passing notes to each other under their classroom desks. But here? Why?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 11 Dec 2017 #135
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

"We have glorified our needs so fearfully that our needs for shelter, food and sex, which are simple, natural and clean, have become complicated and made hideous, cruel, appalling, by this colossal and ever-crumbling structure which we call society."

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day | Dec 11, 2017

The 'fearful glorification of natural needs' is an apt way to describe the direction in which society has generally evolved. Thought, the processes of thought, has enabled us to travel that direction, and we have hardly looked back and wondered at it, again, in general.

Of course, K was not the first to point it out, nor the most eloquent. "All is vanity." K was very fond of the King James Bible:

Ecclesiastes 1

Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?

One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

I the Preacher was king over Israel in Jerusalem.

And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith.

I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.

I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea, my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.

And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit.

For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

++++++++++++++++

It seems the one thing that has not evolved, along with everything else, is wisdom.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 13 Dec 2017 #136
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

One thing we have inherited from four billion years of evolution involves the legacy of the life and death struggle during all that time, which has come down to us as a specific set of instinctual drives.

Life, it seems to me, is a pattern that has within its essential structure the means to extend and replicate itself, which it has done very successfully throughout most of the existence of the planet. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the earliest life forms discovered are those from remains of biotic life found in 4.1 billion-year-old rocks in Western Australia, which as one considers it is remarkably young in terms of the life of the planet. Life, it is being said, has been on the planet for 90% of its existence and so biological evolution is a very, very ancient thing.

In animal life, which moves around and constantly changes its environment (unlike plant life which is mostly rooted), the quest for survival took more sophisticated forms and gave rise to what we call instinctive responses. As for humans, it is deeply rooted in our psyche that the essence of life is the struggle to survive and replicate/reproduce.

It seems to me (and I may be wrong) that we are attuned to the rhythms of the distant past when survival was a day to day struggle. Deep in our psychological structure is the design, the pattern that enabled us not only to survive but also to prosper during the most difficult times. Challenges that have to do with the life/death struggle excite us and make us feel 'alive.' We are designed for that. Yet for most of us, our day to day survival is assured and we do not get to exercise that zestful energy except through the 'games' we create. Whether it is war, dangerous sports, competition in general or seeking gain, I am saying that it is that same energy which is being employed, trying to find a correct expression of itself.

Without such challenges life appears dull. So I think about myself and those I have known and try to verify (without deluding myself) if all that is true or is probable, and it seems to be so. When we speak of greed being a dominant factor in the society we have created it may be insightful to consider how much even greed is a mere game to exercise this zest for challenge and adventure, which our psyches have been geared up for ever since . . . well, who is to say how far back it goes into our animal past?

Even the quest for enlightenment may be considered one such game, but that is not my point. When the prophet (above) said "all is vanity" I feel he was pointing at all of this. Everything we have built up, beyond what is necessary for mere survival, may be a consequence of this zest for movement, for challenge and for the struggle. Without it we would be no different from the cow in the field.

The question for us, for our future as a species, may involve finding ways to usefully employ those vital energy patterns, not to deny, suppress or try to 'overcome' them. At present they harness ignorance, greed and competition and they result in suffering. K pointed out that an economic or political revolution will not change the basic structure of the mind. Yet we cannot wait for the so-called psychological revolution either. We have a responsibility to face up to this challenge, now, too. If you have children and you feel a deep responsibility for those children, how will you approach this?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 13 Dec 2017 #137
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 122 posts in this forum Online

Paul David son wrote:
We have a responsibility to face up to this challenge, now, too. If you have children and you feel a deep responsibility for those children, how will you approach this?

If you take it as I do that there was some 'wrong turning' along our way (the consequences of which are all the bloodshed, violence, divisions, suffering etc.) the 'only' course of action that makes sense to me is to know the ways of this resulting 'self', myself. How one goes about that is completely personal because there obviously is no method, no 'map'. And no assurance that what is being done in the name of this is 'right' or just 'more of the same'.

Your "cow" reference made me recall Walt Whitman:

“I think I could turn and live with animals, they are so placid and self-contain’d, I stand and look at them long and long.

They do not sweat and whine about their condition, They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins, They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God, Not one is dissatisfied, not one is demented with the mania of owning things, Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago, Not one is respectable or unhappy over the whole earth.”

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 13 Dec 2017 #138
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
If you take it as I do that there was some 'wrong turning' along our way

Hi Dan. Thanks. I dismiss speculation about a 'wrong turn' insofar as I have no witness that there was ever a right road. I think it more likely we are as we are as the result of evolution and that we have to face what we are and deal with life.

Dan McDermott wrote:
the 'only' course of action that makes sense to me is to know the ways of this resulting 'self', myself.

Right, and that goes for whether or not there was a right path and/or a wrong turn. We are what we are, now, so we need to face up to it.

Dan McDermott wrote:
How one goes about that is completely personal because there obviously is no method, no 'map'.

Either we initiate action or we don't. Self-knowledge is a very small element in what we actually are, is it not? Mostly, we have no idea, or rather, all we have is ideas.

Having said that, it seems a good idea to gain some knowledge of what one thinks one is, in the sense that one can say about myself, "I seem to act on the premise that I am this, or I am that" or, "I generate ideas about myself and about my actions on the premise that I am this or that."

I think that could be an honest way to start: Allow oneself to know what one is saying about oneself (internally as well as externally), about the posture one shows to the world, about the silent and/or subtle ways the self-image is created and is displayed through action/behavior. Whereas such observation is, as you say, personal, it seems to me to be a good starting point for all of us.

A second useful thing is to observe what one actually does, one's actions in relationship. I say this because there is usually a vast discrepancy between the self-image and the the performance (including the performance of the thought/emotions).

One can even take a snapshot of oneself at particularly revealing moments where the discrepancy is the greatest. It gives quite a coverage of who you are while at the same time allowing other possibilities to emerge.

I am not describing a method. It's just a couple of practical observations from my own experience. After all, you are what you do, which includes what you think AND what you think you do. Best at least to see the 'what is' of that and leave all the 'howing' and 'trying' to one side.

It's not a matter of evolving to another state, I think, but of becoming aware of the state we are in . . . what Bohm has been quoted on another thread of calling 'proprioception,' but of the complete being.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 21 Dec 2017 #139
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

The most incredible thing to evolve perhaps is life itself. The transition to life from that which was 'inert' might itself have gone through many stages, many in-between forms. But what if it had never happened? What if life were never to have come about, would it have made any substantial difference? Has life actually added anything to 'what is?'

K said, 'we are the world' and one can extend that from the human world to that of the animal, the biological and in fact to the whole universe. We are of that. To imagine that some unworldly power somehow implanted life onto a lonely planet spinning in space grants the human psyche tremendous latitude for its arrogance.

Here on Knet some contributors have not rid themselves of the idea of life being 'granted' or 'planted.' They seem to believe in the immortal soul, however subtly. K spoke of there being that which is beyond the material and not subject to time/evolution. But he also spoke out against all conceptions of the soul, atman, higher self etc, that one has to get in touch with, aspire to, liberate or otherwise 'become.' Yet he felt very strongly that something was there, 'the Other,' and that one could, if one became 'nothing,' be touched by it.

But why? Was it something real or just the last vestige of his belief once all else had been 'negated?' In other words, did 'the Other' represent anything more than the evolution of the theosophical idea of God, stripped of his final vestments.

Well, maybe he still had his string vest!

This post was last updated by Paul David son Thu, 21 Dec 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 23 Dec 2017 #140
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

An interesting take on our possible future evolution . . . https://www.alternet.org/culture/visionary-sci-...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Dec 2017 #141
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

Interesting notion from K on how the ego evolves in each of us:

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day

Ojai, California | 6th Public Talk 23rd June, 1934

Question: How can one determine what shall fill the vacuum created in the process of eliminating self-consciousness?

Krishnamurti: Sir, why do you want to eliminate self-consciousness? Why do you think it is important to dissolve self-consciousness, or that "I", that egotistic limitation? Why do you think it is necessary? If you say it is necessary because you seek happiness, then that self-consciousness, that limited particularity of the ego will still continue. But if you say, "I see conflict, my mind and heart are caught up in disharmony, but I see the cause of this disharmony, which is the lack of understanding of environment which has created that self-consciousness", then there is no void to be filled. I am afraid the questioner has not understood this at all.

Please let me explain this once again. What we call self-consciousness, or that "I" consciousness, is nothing else but the result of environment; that is, when the mind and heart do not understand environment, the surroundings, the conditions in which an individual finds himself, then through the lack of that understanding, conflict is created. Mind is clouded by this conflict, and this continual conflict creates memory and becomes identified with mind and thus this idea of "I", of ego consciousness, becomes hardened. Hence further conflict, suffering and pain. But the understanding of the circumstances, the surroundings, the conditions which create this conflict does not come through substitution but through intelligence, which is mind and love; that intelligence which is ever self-creating, ever in movement. And that to me is eternity, a timeless reality. Whereas, you are seeking the perpetuation of that consciousness which is the result of environment, which you call the "I", and that "I" can disappear only when there is the understanding of environment. Intelligence then functions normally, without restraint or compulsion. Then there is not this frightful struggle, this search for beauty, search for truth, and the constant battle of possessive love, because intelligence itself is complete.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Jan 2018 #142
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

We were discussing at the beginning of this thread whether or not the human consciousness is itself subject to evolution or, once formed in principle, is solely accumulates to itself. I think everyone participating in the inquiry was agreed that there has been no substantial evolution of the ego, since it may have arisen. That is to say, though it may have changed, developed in form and constitution, it has not radically altered to the degree it has become something else.

Another part of this was whether the human consciousness, with its ego, could in the future transform itself into something different. Though it may seem perfectly reasonable to argue that it may do this, there was no indication that it was going in that direction. To put it another way, the contradictions that arise in the human character show no indication of reaching a point in which a fundamental negation of the underlying principle of the ego will be negated in favor of some new arrangement of the human mind.

A third part, not really explored, was whether in some cases the ego had somehow been negated, as for instance is claimed to have been the case with K, with the Buddha, the Jesus character and so on. This is really impossible to explore, I would say, precisely because there can be offered no proof that any such thing ever happened. If it has not happened to you, then you cannot say.

But there is another whole side to the enigma of human consciousness, which is, how did it ever get this way? It is commonly put in these circles that the cosmos is a perfect order and that in that perfect order only the human mind has become disordered. Everything in the universe is ordered except human consciousness. There is an enigma in such a way of understanding things. The enigma is this. If the cosmos (all and everything) is order, how did it ever give rise to disorder, albeit that disorder is only evidenced in such a small region of actuality as the human world (the 'noosphere,' it has been called)?

One single spec of contamination can turn a gallon of milk to curdle. Similarly, the evident disorder of man cannot but have an impact on the whole. But how could it happen? If there was internal order one might say that the contamination must have come from without. But that would be duality, the order and the disorder. So, leaving dualistic solutions of exogenous factors aside, how could order itself lead to disorder? At that level it becomes a philosophical conundrum, the sort loved by intellectuals and theologians. So again, we may put that aside and hope to come to it another way.

K, in his discussions with Bohm, suggested that humanity itself had taken a "wrong turn." The 'fall from Eden' story is a biblical equivalent of such an idea, that given choice, man used it. The granting of free choice is one thing but then what influenced the taking of that choice? In the bible it is the weakness of Eve, the feminine, to the seduction by the serpent. The intent of the metaphor was to suggest female lust, but as an example of man falling from the spiritual sphere (communing with God) to the physical sphere of desire and greed.

We are never given a concrete example from Bohm or K as to how they saw the 'wrong turn.' No amount of dialogue got them closer to it. But we are left with the notion that somehow, it was thought that brought the fall of man from his natural state. Therefore, what brought about this disruptive element, thought? Did thought not evolve, naturally, as part of the cosmic order? Or was it the wrong use of thought, thought not in its "right place" that made us turn?

Please notice that all the above ideas are predicated on the precept that the universe is order, that because the word 'cosmos' meant 'order' in Ancient Greece that the universe must be order. On what basis is such a precept formed? Is there any evidence at all that the cosmos lives up to what it says on the label?

If the 'cosmos' thesis is set aside, things are considerably simplified. The disorder in man is part and parcel of the evolution of life and there was never any wrong turn as there was never any right turn or right path. But if there was never any pristine state of oceanic consciousness we somehow drifted away from, then the endgame of arriving back there is thoroughly false.

I am not saying that a psychological revolution is therefore impossible or that we are stuck in this state, as a species, until our inevitable moment of self-destruction. But if there is such a possibility it has to be seen in its own terms and not in built from the context of some unworldly philosophical stance about which we delude ourselves and build our hopes from.

For one, I personally admit to knowing nothing more than I have outlined above. I have just followed the logic of what others have said and revealed some uncomfortable truths, for those with eyes to see them. I think a psychological revolution would be right and it would be good. But in regards of how it might be brought about, I am a complete ignoramus.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Jan 2018 #143
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 122 posts in this forum Online

Paul David son wrote:
We are never given a concrete example from Bohm or K as to how they saw the 'wrong turn.' No amount of dialogue got them closer to it. But we are left with the notion that somehow, it was thought that brought the fall of man from his natural state. Therefore, what brought about this disruptive element, thought? Did thought not evolve, naturally, as part of the cosmic order? Or was it the wrong use of thought, thought not in its "right place" that made us turn?

Good questions all. For me I recall Bohm saying somewhere that we made the 'wrong turn' because 'we could'. It hadn't been a possibility before 'us'. We could 'see' ourselves as something different (superior?) than those around us. We could see that we had an 'advantage'. We could plan, think ahead...we were free of the 'now'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Jan 2018 #144
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
For me I recall Bohm saying somewhere that we made the 'wrong turn' because 'we could'

Yes, which reintroduces 'choice' or 'free to choose' does it not?

'We could' indicates the evolution of the freedom or the ability to choose between turns. So perhaps 'choice' could be questioned. What is involved in making choices? Are we using the term to indicate some activity of mind that other animals do not or cannot engage in? And if so, why do animals not engage in choosing? We want to see what exactly has evolved in the human being that leads it into choice, that gives it this new possibility. 'We could' becomes, as a question, 'why could we?'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Jan 2018 #145
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
We could plan, think ahead...we were free of the 'now'.

Put that way, 'the now' is something to be free of. But now is actuality. One can never be free of it. No matter where ones imagination takes one (projection into past and future and making plans) one always has to come back to the present. Ones feet are planted in the ground, always.

But thought does create a sense of freedom, insofar as one can fly in dreams etc. Thoughts can soar like birds. The poetic form is a wonderful example of that.

One reads Blake, "To see the world in a grain of sand, and to see heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hands, and eternity in an hour" or "If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite," and one feels lifted right out of ones feet of clay.

To plan ahead does not require one to be egoistic in the sense of superiority or to seek advantage over others. One can plan ahead without egoism. So I feel we haven't discovered the wrong turn as yet.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Jan 2018 #146
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 122 posts in this forum Online

Paul David son wrote:
One can plan ahead without egoism.

Yes, when we realized that we could chase our prey into a canyon that led out to a steep cliff and they weren't able to figure out what we had in mind and fell to their deaths, egoism was not needed. The egoism lay in our wanting to become better psychologically not just technically, what K. calls "becoming".

Paul David son wrote:
'We could' becomes, as a question, 'why could we?'

Isn't this the result of our evolved physical brain, the neocortex?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 10 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Jan 2018 #147
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Yes, when we realized that we could chase our prey into a canyon that led out to a steep cliff

Yes, and we could build a shelter in the tree so as not to get eaten at night. I guess that was a selfish act as the lions needed to eat :-)

Dan McDermott wrote:
Isn't this the result of our evolved physical brain, the neocortex?

Maybe so. I think you are probably correct. But how does the neocortex function in such a way to present us the ability to choose? I'm not asking for a neurologist's explanation but can we see what is involved in our every choice? Can we follow it in our own brain/mind as it happens?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Jan 2018 #148
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

The evolution of language:

Humpty Dumpty: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

Jiddu Krishnamurti: "When I use the terms positive and negative I am not using them in opposition to each other."

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day | Jan 11, 2018

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 121 - 148 of 148 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.)