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

Evolution


Displaying posts 181 - 210 of 248 in total
Thu, 22 Mar 2018 #181
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 15 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
I am seeing the inner and outer as being the same movement, only differentiated from the point of view of subjectivity or one can say,m perception.

Agree on that, it's a single movement and therefore phrased 'movement as inner and outer'.

Paul David son wrote:
It is not balance that we need but understanding. Conscience, the ability to sense inner deviation and which alerts us to self-contradiction,

self-contradiction implies presence of 'ideals' and therefore a struggle to choose or overcome them altogether for action is still awaiting completion. An inactive conscience is choice suppressed and as I see, is self-contradiction passing undetected. When you say understanding, there is a seeing beyond the conscience (and the contradiction/choice that's created) and action is completed without friction.

Paul David son wrote:
It is when the 'where we are' becomes the sole or dominant point of reference that we fail to act sanely, that is, in keeping with our real situation, not the imagined one.

As I see, 'where we are' in a historical and biological sense and that is the real situation, wherein conscience is active and therefore 'understanding' as a seeing past it.

This post was last updated by natarajan shivan Thu, 22 Mar 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Mar 2018 #182
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 183 posts in this forum Offline

What I am saying, Nat, is that conscience is not a separate faculty. It is not separate from thought. It is not a faculty that is there to balance anything. It is a facet of thought/consciousness. It is an alertness to self-contradiction which serves the ego and it does it in two directions, which I will explain.

Conscience is the uncomfortable feeling that draws attention to problems that occur when thought/desire is in an immediate contradiction with itself or with the image it has of itself. What is key here is the feeling of unease or of discomfort which one tends to call 'the prick of conscience.' It is the unease which is felt as a disturbance of the status quo which has to be dealt with.

The discomfort which we call 'conscience' can either be dealt with directly by raising attention to the source of the discomfort and understanding that source or it can dealt with indirectly by means of repression or further self-deception, which is very often exactly what we do.

But in the common lexicon of understanding we take conscience to be the good. In reality, it can go either way, good or bad.

It is important to deconstruct the ideas that we have been saddled with on conscience or we risk misunderstanding the whole nature of thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Mar 2018 #183
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 15 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
It is an alertness to self-contradiction which serves the ego and it does it in two directions, which I will explain.

I’ll put it differently, in real situations, an active conscience can engender a sense of self-righteousness or it can torture by rejection. And, ego usually manages the torture and rejection by identifying with the operation of conscience and thereby feeling self-righteous that way. This alternation between opposing feelings is the way conscience and ego operates together. To understand, is, to see the powerlessness in this symbiotic operation, in bringing about a change which conscience is striving to bring about. To understand, then implies, a total surrender to the reality it is faced with, in striving and erring it sees the inevitability of surrender. I don’t intend to burden us forever either with an idea of conscience or it’s real torture, but what needs be acknowledged is the significance of it’s striving.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Mar 2018 #184
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 183 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
in real situations, an active conscience . . .

In essence I am saying that there is no such thing as conscience, active or not. What we are calling conscience is nothing but awareness when it is receptive to internal contradiction. It is necessary to deconstruct (negate) the learned concept of so-called conscience, which has had such a confusing message and such a nefarious effect on religious thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Apr 2018 #185
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 183 posts in this forum Offline

Still enthralled by a question my grand daughter asked Ana out of the blue the other day:

"Ana, may I ask you something? How can I exist if I don't understand myself?"

Yasmin is just turned five.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Apr 2018 #186
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 183 posts in this forum Offline

All ideals are foolery and without much significance for a thoughtful man.

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day | Apr 05, 2018

What is an 'ideal' and has K's 'teaching' evolved into one for you?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Apr 2018 #187
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 183 posts in this forum Offline

An attempted answer to the questions above:

What is an ideal?

An ideal is a mental projection wherein something perfect or perfected is imagined. It could relate to a state of perfection one wants to achieve or enter into. It could relate to a perfect state of society one may envisage. Or it could relate to a philosophical concept such as justice, love, democracy or freedom.

Would would an ideal be in relation to K's 'teaching?'

What is essential about an ideal is that it is a mental projection about a state that one has not oneself experienced. The K teachings abound with ideas we can make into ideals. What is essential in this regard however is not the ideas K introduces themselves but what we do with them. The human mind tends often to run ahead of actual knowledge and in doing so it takes an idea and builds a platform for itself upon which to mentate further.

For example, the idea 'I am the world and the world is me.' K said that this statement is only a truth when the ego has been dissolved. Otherwise, it is, he said, mere intellectualisation. Yet it is very easy to take the statement, 'I am the world and the world is me' and begin to build on it. The moment you find yourself putting a 'therefore' after the statement, you have turned it into an ideal. Only for someone for whom it is true in every moment can add a therefore.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 11 Apr 2018 #188
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 183 posts in this forum Offline

Well folks . . . it's war tomorrow, and the day after. hang onto your K-hats!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Apr 2018 #189
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 183 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
What is a "K-hat"?

A good question, Dan. Find out what a hat is and then apply it to one's disposition to any teaching, not just that of K.

A 'hat' is a common psychological metaphor for a position, a mode or an identification. K spoke a great deal about it, though he didn't use that particular metaphor and more often talked of 'becoming' and of duality.

Were I to say I was wearing my analytical hat it would mean I am putting myself into an analytical mode. To wear a K-hat would therefore mean to put oneself in a K mode, which if you are not aware you have experienced that mode I suggest you become aware of it because you most certainly have, unless you are very different from others drawn to the teaching.

It means to correspond oneself to what one thinks would have been K's reaction. There is pretense involved.

Did you ever come across the philosophical fridge magnet that reads, "WWJD" (what would Jesus do?) The equivalent here might be, "What attitude should I adopt to the upcoming war that would correspond to my understanding of K's teaching?"

The requirement being "to live the teaching."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Apr 2018 #190
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 34 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
It means to correspond oneself to what one thinks would have been K's reaction. There is pretense involved.

That sounds pretty foreign to me. I can't imagine thinking/guessing "what would K.'s reaction be to war"? He has written as have many others that it is generally a stupid activity, that violence begets violence, that it is the inevitable result of 'nationalism', competition, greed, power seeking, etc. etc. I don't see at all this 'trying to be like Krishnamurti'...I thought 'war' was obscene long before I came upon K. and others but true, G.B. Shaw was an eye opener as well as some other writers/poets. (Onward Christian Soldiers!)

Reflecting a bit more on this, k.'s teaching comes down to me that we have two survival modes: one is the biological which is inherited from our animal ancestors and is necessary. The other is psychological survival which is a spill-over from the other but is not only futile and not necessary but is divisive, destructive and somewhat pathetic.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 12 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Apr 2018 #191
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 183 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks Dan. Interesting and honest post.

Dan McDermott wrote:
That sounds pretty foreign to me. I can't imagine thinking/guessing "what would K.'s reaction be to war"?

Right, and . . .

Dan McDermott wrote:
I thought 'war' was obscene long before I came upon K

It's difficult or impossible to pick up where all our influences came from but there is a basic spirit that comes through in your post, a distaste for violence. I think that is part of the 'animal' inheritance . . . albeit also alongside a taste for violence. Animals are neither this nor that. They too are conditioned according to their experiences. WE are still animals, Dan, and best not to forget it.

It seems to me that the evolution of the two trends had an advantage . . . protect your own and defend from the other. The evolutionary pressure leads to those adaptations.

And I agree, on the affective level, that war is obscene. I lived with some Maoists back in 1969. It was only for a couple of months, and at that time I followed my distaste for violence by adopting a pacifist mode. I see now that this also involved the nurturing of a posture. I was 'the pacifist' in the house and was true to the posture. They even asked me the question often posed to K, "What if you came across a woman being tortured or killed by . . . whoever?" I recall answering that any force I used to resolve the situation would be counterproductive. Well, in the end they threw me out, of course.

But my position was not true to myself. It only reflected a part of my psychological disposition, a part that my then ego approved of as it met my self-image.

A couple of years back, on this site, I confronted a guy called Rick Lein on his pacifist position, asking him whether, if he had the chance, he would take out a school-shooter killing children. He expressed disgust at the question, at the very fact that I had asked it. It made me a kind of monster in his eyes.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 Apr 2018 #192
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 183 posts in this forum Offline

Some years ago now a person close to me at that time told me I had flitted from one 'life-game' to another. I think this was her general commentary on what people do.

There was a pop-psych book out a way back called 'Games People Play.' Besides containing descriptions of various common games and the roles one assigns oneself in them, the overall impression offered was that human beings, having developed labor-saving technologies, have plenty of time on their hands and invent complex games in which to spend it. Those games offer rewards, both positive and negative, which consist, as the author described them, of 'strokes,' meaning that we like to be stroked, that is, affirmed. There was a glimmer of hope that in understanding and observing such games in oneself and in others, we might even lift ourselves out of them.

Now, if it is true and if the games provide various layers of meanings for our lives, dramas we can believe in and emotionally engage with, what then when the games end? What purposes or meanings are left? To answer 'life itself' is pretty meaningless. Yes, life has its own meaning but is it enough for us?

Evolution has us in its grip, not only physically (adaptation to the changing environment) but also psychologically. Our minds have been set up as response mechanisms to the challenges life throws at us. As those natural challenges have diminished (to the extent we have food, water, shelter, food, healthcare etc) so the arena of struggle in which our minds, with all their emotional repartee, have evolved to engage with, become restless and look for new challenges. That is the theory.

My question is, what is the nature of a human mind when it has no challenge with which to engage? Does it have motivation to continue? Is this the dilemma evolution has led to. a human being that has outlived itself?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 May 2018 #193
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 183 posts in this forum Offline

The following is a brilliant account of the emergence of the theory of evolution from the empty shell of religious fixity. I will give the reference later. Suffice it to say that this account is now 135 years old. Have we digested it yet?:

"It was characteristic that, almost simultaneously with Kant's attack on the eternity of the solar system, C. F. Wolff in 1759 launched the first attack on the fixity of species and proclaimed the theory of descent. But what in his case was still only a brilliant anticipation took firm shape in the hands of Oken, Lamarck, Baer, and was victoriously carried through by Darwin in 1859, exactly a hundred years later. Almost simultaneously it was established that protoplasm and the cell, which had already been shown to be the ultimate morphological constituents of all organisms, occurred independently as the lowest forms of organic life. This not only reduced the gulf between inorganic and organic nature to a minimum but removed one of the most essential difficulties that had previously stood in the way of the theory of descent of organisms. The new conception of nature was complete in its main features; all rigidity was dissolved, all fixity dissipated, all particularity that had been regarded as eternal became transient, the whole of nature shown as moving in eternal flux and cyclical course.

"Thus we have once again returned to the point of view of the great founders of Greek philosophy, the view that the whole of nature,from the smallest element to the greatest,from grains of sand to suns, from protista to men, has its existence in eternal coming into being and passing away, in ceaseless flux, in un-resting motion and change, only with the essential difference that what for the Greeks was a brilliant intuition, is in our case the result of strictly scientific research in accordance with experience, and hence also it emerges in a much more definite and clear form. It is true that the empirical proof of this motion is not wholly free from gaps, but these are insignificant in comparison with what has already been firmly established, and with each year they become more and more filled up. And how could the proof in detail be otherwise than defective when one bears in mind that the most essential branches of science —trans-planetary astronomy, chemistry, geology— have a scientific existence of barely a hundred years, and the comparative method in physiology one of barely fifty years, and that the basic form of almost all organic development, the cell, is a discovery not yet forty years old?

"The innumerable suns and solar systems of our island universe, bounded by the outermost stellar rings of the Milky Way, developed from swirling, glowing masses of vapour, the laws of motion of which will perhaps be disclosed after the observations of some centuries have given us an insight into the proper motion of the stars. Obviously, this development did not proceed everywhere at the same rate. Recognition of. the existence of dark bodies, not merely planetary in nature, hence extinct suns in our stellar system, more and more forces itself on astronomy (Mädler); on the other hand (according to Secchi) a part of the vaporous nebular patches belong to our stellar system as suns not yet fully formed, whereby it is not excluded that other nebulae, as Mädler maintains, are distant independent island universes, the relative stage of development of which must be determined by the spectroscope."

My Note: As K often said, consciousness is also a material process. Therefore, this consciousness, from that of the smallest organism to that of humankind, is also a process of flux and evolution. To the extent that the human consciousness is stuck, one could say that this is in contradiction with the general movement of all and everything.

This post was last updated by Paul David son Sat, 05 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 May 2018 #194
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 183 posts in this forum Offline

Apols for posting one after the other on different matters but upon seeing the Kwote of the day I wanted to comment:

"The 'I' comes into being through desire; then the 'I' feels established and creates the desire which is outward, the desire and 'I' thus becoming two separate entities, which means that the thinker and the thought are separate."

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day | May 05, 2018

This is an excellent demonstration of evolution in terms of the mind.


  1. DESIRE: First there is desire (the 'it') which comes in terms of an innocent display or energy charge or drive, such as hunger where the desire is for food.


  2. MEMORY: The experience of many such desires and their sating or non-sating results in an accumulation called memory.


  3. RESPONSE THROUGH ASSOCIATION: The challenge is for the desires to be successfully met and this requires a variety of responses, each according to the ever-changing situation but relating to memory as situations, though ever-changing are markedly patterned. Memory operates through association.


  4. THE CENTER: To understand the world, what it offers and how to get it, leads to the establishment of a center, the 'I.' We see this already in an infant and especially around the age of seven where the definite contours of this 'I' appear set.


  5. MANUFACTURE: This center, the 'I,' is then increasingly able to manufacture from the range of challenges and desires facing it in any moment, the most desirable AND the most accessible. Indeed, it becomes proficient at balancing the demands of desirability and accessibility at every occasion.


  6. SEPARATION: Thus there arises a growing potential between that which has become the 'I' and the desires it now projects. This potential can be viewed as psychological stress.


  7. ALIENATION: Whereas the stress between the manufactured desire and its satisfaction is actually the non-conformity of the idea to the actuality it may appear to the center to be the world not conforming to its urgent needs. The desire/satisfaction complex, created by thought, now appears as if it were an antagonistic agent, foisted upon the hapless center by an external force.


I was reading this week about a 'movement' calling itself 'Incel.' which stands for 'involuntary celibate.' A largely male social trend, the idea is this: "Women will not open their legs for me, which must be my natural right since I was vested with a penis, and so women must be punished." A man pertaining to this current drove his vehicle down a pedestrian precinct in Toronto, Canada last week, killing several people.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 May 2018 #195
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 34 posts in this forum Offline

And according to K. the only way for the brain/thought to get out of this bind as the effects of 'Separation' and 'Alienation' appear and the 'I' seeks through belief to establish more and more safety for itself, is for it to, as K. says in the same QOTD: (bold is mine)

"Because thought is seeking permanency, it says "I will go to a higher level of consciousness or a deep level which is my belief, which is my God", and goes higher and higher to be more and more permanent. When this trick is understood, it is gone, and the thinker and the thought are one. Then, there will be a revolution in our daily life."

And without this radical understanding, the 'I's efforts to establish its permanence through whatever means only increases our inevitable 'alienation'.

To add: another point in what you write above that struck me, is your use of the word "stress" to describe the situation caused by this illusion of the 'I' or 'thinker' separate from its thought. This 'stress' is always there and when it reaches a threshold it is felt as suffering and is addressed but until that threshold is reached, it is accepted as tolerable. Conflicts come and go and are resolved but the root cause; the 'I process',(the "trick") goes on 'undiscovered'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 06 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 May 2018 #196
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 183 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
To add: another point in what you write above that struck me, is your use of the word "stress" to describe the situation caused by this illusion of the 'I' or 'thinker' separate from its thought. This 'stress' is always there and when it reaches a threshold it is felt as suffering and is addressed but until that threshold is reached, it is accepted as tolerable. Conflicts come and go and are resolved but the root cause; the 'I process',(the "trick") goes on 'undiscovered'.

Indeed. I used two words that might have seemed odd to the reader, one was stress and the other was potential.

Stress is an unavoidable factor in life. Hunger is stress, for example. May we consider lack of sleep as another example? We might be tempted to say that lack of sleep causes stress, but this would be wrong as it introduces a time relation where it is not required. In the term 'lack of sleep' the word 'lack' already implies a state of stress. The word 'lack' is qualitative and implies a need that is not being met. In general, where there is a need, this is registered by a psycho-physical impulse to satisfy that need and thus eliminate the stress, bringing the organism back into harmony.

Potential is a word I am using to describe the relation between the desire (focused on satisfying the need and relieving the stress which is the subjective expression of that need) and the object that is projected as the means to satisfy that desire. It could be viewed as an energy relationship in the same way that electrical potentials are viewed. The potential of energy to pass from here to there is a measure of the difference between one point of energy and another. In terms of desire and object of desire this can be concretised as the needs of the organism and the resistance of the environment. They have to reach a new point of stasis and this is possible for the fact that the organism is not actually separate from its environment but is part of that environment, has arisen from that environment and will return to it. What is happening is not more than a movement or an exchange within an environment. It is only the human mind, with its conscious subjectivity, which posits a separation and it does so only insofar as it has established a relatively autonomous centre, namely the 'I.' And on that basis it alienates itself from 'its' environment.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 May 2018 #197
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 183 posts in this forum Offline

I think what I was getting at with the K quote was how K viewed the formation of the I as not a simple mistake but as an evolutionary process, albeit a fluid one which he considered capable of a radical reverse or better put, a negation (for nothing in the world can be actually reversed).

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 May 2018 #198
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 183 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
"Because thought is seeking permanency, it says "I will go to a higher level of consciousness or a deep level which is my belief, which is my God", and goes higher and higher to be more and more permanent. When this trick is understood, it is gone, and the thinker and the thought are one. Then, there will be a revolution in our daily life."

Yes, the negation has been put by K in that way. And since the seeking of permanency is itself a negation of actuality, the ending of that seeking is a negation of the negation, which conforms to a dialectical view of process. Let us be clear that K is there talking of a material process, that of the mind. I would hazard to guess that K would have no trouble with understanding dialectics where it concerns material process but that he would say that material process is not the all and everything and that beyond material process dialectics has no place.

As for his statement that when the trick is understood a revolution occurs, I can only say that my current understanding of the trick has not produced any revolution as yet.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 May 2018 #199
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 34 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
As for his statement that when the trick is understood a revolution occurs, I can only say that my current understanding of the trick has not produced any revolution as yet.

Yes, for myself, the "understanding of the trick" has, it seems, created a negation or 'withering' of responses and reactions that went on in the past, unchecked, unquestioned, and that played themselves out over time. Now in many cases, the reaction is over almost immediately when it is seen that the would be 'trigger' is the result of as you say the 'stressful' framework that has been unconsciously created: the separation of thinker and thought. I know that K. has refused the idea of 'becoming' and time in this process of 'freedom from the known' but it is at this point in my observation at least, how I would say that this understanding of the 'problem' is 'playing out' in me.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 May 2018 #200
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 183 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Yes, for myself, the "understanding of the trick" has, it seems, created a negation or 'withering' of responses and reactions that went on in the past, unchecked, unquestioned, and that played themselves out over time. Now in many cases, the reaction is over almost immediately when it is seen that the would be 'trigger' is the result of as you say the 'stressful' framework that has been unconsciously created: the separation of thinker and thought.

Yes, for me too, but I also wonder if this is not generally true of people as they gain experience and are able to understand more, especially in the balance of desire to realisability. I am not saying it is so, but I am not ready to credit the change on any reading of anyone.

In general, as you begin to understand that your very desires are self-manufactured, you begin to deliberate, adapt, placate, diffuse and in general reassess every desire as it comes up, not taking each one as a given. In other words, one becomes less mechanical and this is generally (though inadequately) referred to as the wisdom that comes with age. Freud would have called it the maturation of the ego. Thus you are right to question whether this is what K meant by either 'revolution' or 'becoming' which he posed as entirely different things.

I am thinking that we are still describing the evolution in the individual rather than his revolution.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 May 2018 #201
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 34 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
In general, as you begin to understand that your very desires are self-manufactured, you begin to deliberate, adapt, placate, diffuse and in general reassess every desire as it comes up, not taking each one as a given. In other words, one becomes less mechanical and this is generally (though inadequately) referred to as the wisdom that comes with age.

'My' experience tells me that insights into the 'illusion' of a thinker separate from 'my' thoughts is the only way psychological evolution (revolution) can take place. Otherwise it is as you say, the "maturation of the ego" which being a product of the past would make any imaginable 'freedom from the known' impossible. K. has been very direct about this too; in statements like "where the Self is, the 'Other' is not." Which says to me that the self/ego/thinker process is an obstacle to any further 'evolution' and needs to be seen as it is and how it operates in each of us. Which is to say that it must become aware of itself. Which calls for a 'new' perceptive approach.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 07 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 07 May 2018 #202
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 183 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
My' experience tells me that insights into the 'illusion' of a thinker separate from 'my' thoughts is the only way psychological evolution (revolution) can take place. Otherwise it is as you say, the "maturation of the ego" which being a product of the past would make any imaginable 'freedom from the known' impossible. K. has been very direct about this too; in statements like "where the Self is, the 'Other' is not." Which says to me that the self/ego/thinker process is an obstacle to any further 'evolution' and needs to be seen as it is and how it operates in each of us. Which is to say that it must become aware of itself. Which calls for a 'new' perceptive approach.

Very interesting Dan.

What we generally name the 'I' seems to me to have two very important aspects. The first is that it is a process, a process in which the human mind looks back at itself, in part, and in that looking back, directs its own process to some extent. It thus keeps itself on a more or less rational path. The second aspect is that this 'looking back on itself' becomes crystalised as 'result' into a structure of thought. We commonly call both these aspects by the name 'consciousness.'

To the extent that the structure once formed, which we may say is the past, directs the present, it can act as the sum of all previous misunderstandings and thus distort current perception, which leads to an overall irrationality. I think you are also seeing that.

Consciousness, the ability of the mind to look back at its own processes, which Bohm called 'proprioception' is inherently limited, but the mind, taken as a whole, is intelligent and can deal with such limitation so long as it is constantly aware of the limitations of its own knowledge. The mind is therefore potentially rational. It is the aspect of the 'I' that has formed as a structural heritage of past experience that is the most challenging for that intelligence. Proprioception, to be adequate to the challenges that face us, must be capable, aware, concerned with and responsible towards that structure as if it were the precipice or the snake. Perhaps, the combination of those demands is what K called 'earnestness.'

This post was last updated by Paul David son Mon, 07 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 07 May 2018 #203
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 34 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
Proprioception, to be adequate to the challenges that face us, must be capable, aware, concerned with and responsible towards that structure as if it were the precipice or the snake.

The questions raised by some in the seminar that John just posted is why the "glimpsing" of the actuality of the thinker/thought, observer/observed duality doesn't 'last'...K.'s response is that the real 'danger' of that duality wasn't seen (as you say as the 'precipice' or 'snake') or one would not return to it. Having seen the real danger of it, one would not go near it again. That sounds right. And it seems that if all this is so, then this lack of awareness is the key point of why we are 'stuck'. The real danger (according to K.;"the house is on fire") is simply not seen. So if it so, what is the factor that obscures the reality of that 'danger' to my brain? The 'security' of 'going with the flow'? The momentum? What does his statement,"the house is on fire" mean?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 07 May 2018 #204
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 8 posts in this forum Offline

Hello,

it would seem that the brain, with the necessity to bring a real dimension to the information that reaches it via the senses, have not planned or is not able to apprehend both the real and illusory nature of what appear without insight

This post was last updated by richard viillar Mon, 07 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 07 May 2018 #205
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 8 posts in this forum Offline

it seems that the brain has gotten into a functioning of confusion between the illusory and the real, to the point that the movements of instinct are grafted onto the ego ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 08 May 2018 #206
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 183 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
it seems that the brain has gotten into a functioning of confusion between the illusory and the real, to the point that the movements of instinct are grafted onto the ego ...

I think you may be referring there to the 'fight or flight' reaction that is part of the instinctive center.

Bohm, especially, made much of that. He suggested that the particular circuitry of the brain that has to do with reactions to perceived threat, which has evolved over millions of years and is handed down to us from our animal ancestry, has been hijacked by the ego in such a way that where there is a perceived threat to the self image, it is taken as a threat towards the life of the organism.

richard viillar wrote:
not able to apprehend both the real and illusory nature of what appear without insight

So, we have had the insight or not? Or the insight was of the wrong sort? Or it was not strong enough?

I see in myself the error I often fall into. I have seen it in specific cases and I understand it in general. Is that the insight?

This post was last updated by Paul David son Tue, 08 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 09 May 2018 #207
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 8 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
has been hijacked by the ego in such a way that where there is a perceived threat to the self image, it is taken as a threat towards the life of the organism.

I arrive at the same conclusion but not in the same way and I think it's important ... in fact it seems that the brain is trapped giving a real character to the ego. so, instinct also acts for the ego...

Paul David son wrote:
So, we have had the insight or not? Or the insight was of the wrong sort? Or it was not strong enough?

I think that the main thread and in my opinion the essential point is that there is suffering since this confusion ... and that we do not pay enough attention to the nature of the suffering ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 09 May 2018 #208
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 34 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
the brain is trapped giving a real character to the ego.

This 'ego'/ the process of 'becoming'/ the 'me' and 'mine'/ the accumulated hurts and fears... this is the 'precipice' and the 'snake' and the source of all psychological suffering.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 09 May 2018 #209
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 8 posts in this forum Offline

Yes.. Yes..

We go through our lives with the sole purpose of not experiencing suffering (dissatisfaction, boredom, misery, anger, sadness, fear etc ...) while it is only the manifestation of this fundamental confusion. .. the suffering has a flavor, it is also a sensation .. all this must cross the human being without alteration of mental... and then, this kind of attention take place without question...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 09 May 2018 #210
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 8 posts in this forum Offline

May be that in terms of evolution, the human being of tomorrow (if it survives) will have developed the ability to not flee the symptom,the sensation (dissatisfaction, boredom, misery, anger, sadness, fear etc ...).. Of course, it is already today, everyday, something possible.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 181 - 210 of 248 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.)