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

Evolution


Displaying posts 211 - 240 of 242 in total
Sun, 13 May 2018 #211
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 178 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day

Group Discussion 9th December, 1947 | Madras, India

"What is progress, what is evolution? The cart-wheel has progressed to aeroplane; the germ has become the child. We have progressed from the age of the arrow to that of the atomic bomb. Now, we have more breaking up of people than ever, more armies, more national feeling, more fear and more starvation. People have become more greedy and more cunning in a cunning society and more competitive in a competitive society. In spite of the havoc and misery caused by the two world wars, many persons consider that war is inevitable and, in the nature of things, is a means to peace. Is all this progress?

"We have to consider progress as a means of human happiness, i.e., as progress towards human love, consideration, generosity and charity. Have we evolved psychologically towards freedom and happiness? There is more and more deterioration all round - tyranny, dictatorship, diseases, starvation, hatred, wars and confusion."

Comments?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 13 May 2018 #212
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 33 posts in this forum Offline

In my view and as I think Richard was getting at, we have inherited various 'survival' reactions from the animals. 'Jealousy', say as an 'emotion' we have named; first there is the sensation (the button has been pushed) and thought continues down the road with it until it eventually dissipates...I see a lot to look at here and can generalize and say that to a degree this is the case with all the "misplaced sensations". In the animal, it senses the danger to whatever it is attached, a mate, its young, its territory, etc. and reacts according to its instincts and then 'resolves' it. In my case, my 'mate' looks at someone else, i.e., and I 'sense' the danger to our relationship (that it could end?) and I react. And my reaction is based on not just the moment of awareness of the present sensation, but all the 'jealous' moments I've had in the past, the hurts, the rejections etc in memory....and that past all arises to meet this 'sensation' plus 'new' thoughts about "what will the future be like without her", my anger at being 'abandoned', (shame at being 'cuckolded?), fear of being alone; a whole 'program' of my 'particular' reaction to that universal sensation. So 'attachment' is obviously at the root of this but also this recognition of the sensation as being felt before and then the whole unfolding of the 'program' which in the case of jealousy can result in a variety of outcomes, even extreme violence. Wouldn't psychological 'evolution' (flowering?) for us mean the going beyond the immediate 'mechanical' and often complicated personal long-lasting reactions of the thinker/thought to these survival 'sensations' inherited from our animal ancestors?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 14 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 13 May 2018 #213
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 178 posts in this forum Offline

Thank you (personally) for the above post Dan, which is very well expressed and which I'd like to think about and go on with, but not today. Can I ask you to please not delete it as I think others might want to respond and/or continue the discussion. Thanks in advance, Paul.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 May 2018 #214
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 8 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Wouldn't psychological 'evolution' (flowering?) for us mean the going beyond the immediate 'mechanical' and often complicated personal...

yes Dan and Paul, that's it .. as I said also with the other Dan, it is possible to reconnect with the pure sensation, devoid of label .. this phenomenon evaporates the thought and what is called suffering because, in my opinion, as i see it, suffering is a denatured sensation.

This post was last updated by richard viillar Mon, 14 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 May 2018 #215
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 33 posts in this forum Offline

This by the way is the source for the "misplaced sensation" quote. I heard it years ago and just found it:

"Renunciation, in a very precise sense, is the
voluntary giving up of all emotions whatsoever. This notion,
supported by long tradition, goes hand in hand with life.
To be capable of mastering an emotion, one has first to
evaluate and consider it for what it really is, the distortion
of an uncontrolled and misplaced sensation.
"

Letters from a Baul/ Sri Anirvan

Reading some of these letters, it is to me, a very 'complicated' teaching (probably because of the references and language...). But the correlation I see between this view of 'sensation', and K.'s, is his pointing out the 'naming' of it as being the 'trigger' to possible suffering. But to move from that to the attempt to 'suppress' the 'naming' seems wrong...a duality between the 'namer' and what is named?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 16 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 May 2018 #216
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 8 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
This by the way is the source for the "misplaced sensation" quote. I heard it years ago and just found it:

"Renunciation, in a very precise sense, is the
voluntary giving up of all emotions whatsoever. This notion,
supported by long tradition, goes hand in hand with life.
To be capable of mastering an emotion, one has first to
evaluate and consider it for what it really is, the distortion
of an uncontrolled and misplaced sensation. "

Letters from a Baul/ Sri Anirvan

thank you very much for this text Dan, I find it very interesting because it deals precisely with the subject we are dealing with ...

however, the expressions "giving up" and "mastering" can lead to confusion ... I do not think it is necessary to decide to undertake the process of abandoning an emotion or to control it .. because precisely it is from this one that one can go back to the original sensation ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 May 2018 #217
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 178 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks for those who've been posting. Just a note to say I've had great difficulty in paying attention to this since what has been happening in Gaza. I am feeling very ashamed that I can do nothing to stop the terrible events and my heart goes out to the Palestinian people who have died or suffered terrible injuries. I know that this is not 'on subject' and apologies for that. I am not trying to make a political discourse here, just saying why I've not responded to the above thoughtful posts by Dan and Richard.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 May 2018 #218
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 178 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Wouldn't psychological 'evolution' (flowering?) for us mean the going beyond the immediate 'mechanical' and often complicated personal long-lasting reactions of the thinker/thought to these survival 'sensations' inherited from our animal ancestors?

In posing that question, are we setting 'evolution' a goal? I think we are. And it is similar to where K says (from quote above)

Paul David son wrote:
Have we evolved psychologically towards freedom and happiness?

So, let us understand firstly what evolution is.

Evolution is the process of life adapting to a changing environment. It can be progressive, in the sense of the creation of something new, or regressive, in the sense of returning to past patterns (though nothing is ever the same as it was).

But in the above two quotes, from K and from Dan, evolution is defined only from its progressive inclination, which is a limitation evolution does not place on itself. Moreover, the quotes suggest what this progress would be and how it would be measured and I find something inherently false about that. I am not making a personal criticism but applying reason to method. The method of setting tasks or goals for evolution does not seem reasonable. Freedom and happiness do not seem to be involved in evolution. If we look around at the myriad forms of life can we see freedom and happiness? And if we say we can, is not this just the human brain applying labels?

Evolution, if we are to generalise, might be said to have three biases: The first is the evolution from the simple to the complex, the second is the evolution from strictly determined responses of a low order to loosely determined responses of a high order and the third is a seeming heliotropic bias, that things 'grow towards the sun.'

So I am asking, are we saying that love, freedom and happiness are part of the evolutionary process and if we are saying so, in what form are they part of the evolutionary process and where is it evidenced?

This post was last updated by Paul David son Fri, 18 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 May 2018 #219
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 178 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
t is possible to reconnect with the pure sensation, devoid of label .. this phenomenon evaporates the thought and what is called suffering because, in my opinion, as i see it, suffering is a denatured sensation.

Well, it happens when you sit on a pin, for example. But in what other way, Richard?

I sense that when you write of suffering being "denatured sensation" you have created a new label without explaining its significance. Everything is nature, don't you see? When you say humankind is doing something unnatural, what are you doing but dividing humankind from nature? So I think the label inappropriate.

K seems to have put it more concretely when he often pointed out that suffering is the extension of pain within the psychological sphere. Of course physical pain can also be extensive in time, chronic pain for example, but K is pointing to psychological pain (extended as suffering) that can stop instantly if it is understood. Physical pain cannot be so stopped. I will offer an exception to that rule however. All physical pain has a psychological component and it usually entails some form of resistance. If psychological resistance ends then one is left solely with the physical pain which, if extended in time, is still suffering.

I once broke my toe, which was very painful, but I instantly understood what had happened and 'told' the toe I had heard it. The pain subsided immediately to a very sustainable level. The surplus pain that disappeared had been generated by an auxiliary force, anxiety.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 May 2018 #220
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 178 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
"To be capable of mastering an emotion, one has first to
evaluate and consider it for what it really is, the distortion
of an uncontrolled and misplaced sensation. "

While everything psychological has its ultimate base in the sensory field, I think Sri Anirvan was making another point as the preceding line of the piece quoted said, "Renunciation, in a very precise sense, is the voluntary giving up of all emotions whatsoever."

So he is giving voice to the idea of the total elimination of emotion, which he seeks justification for in the liked idea that emotion is a misplaced outgrowth of sensation. This is highly reductionist reasoning. And it is also a total misunderstanding of the emotional field. Emotions are not mistakes. Do animals not have emotions? Therefore, first inquire into what is an emotion.

Sensation and feeling go together. Feelings of pain and pleasure and the whole range or feelings are our common lot with the animal kingdom. But as animals evolved they became social, which is to say, they lived in communities, herds for example, and had to communicate with each other for the success of the community. A monkey cannot give a dry, academic description of an approaching cheetah to his troop. He does it by agitated noises and expressions and movements, in other words, communication is by emotional display.

Emotions develop in order to communicate feelings from one animal to another. Such forms of communication (emotions) develop in order to protect and bond a group. Emotions evolve in accordance with what best suits the animal in its environment. Imagine that animals developed the ability to 'voluntarily give up all their emotions whatsoever.'

No, emotions are not misplaced sensations, they are powerful communicators of feeling.

The question of "mastering" should be approached in that light. Just as one learns to master a language, so one should learn to master the art of emotion. Emotion is a linguistic tool, not something to be shed or to be feared.

The real question however has to do with feelings (psychological feelings), the feeling of hurt, the feeling of shame, of jealousy, of hatred etc. Here, 'mastering' is quite wrong. What is required is intelligence, understanding and perception.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 May 2018 #221
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 178 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
however, the expressions "giving up" and "mastering" can lead to confusion ... I do not think it is necessary to decide to undertake the process of abandoning an emotion or to control it .. because precisely it is from this one that one can go back to the original sensation ...

But as K rightly pointed out, it is thought/feeling that is the more immediate foundation of the emotional displays we often find ourselves in. Sensation has little direct bearing on it. What is necessary therefore is the gi9ving of attention to the foundation of any emotional reaction, what feelings and thoughts brought it into being.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 May 2018 #222
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 8 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
Everything is nature, don't you see? When you say humankind is doing something unnatural, what are you doing but dividing humankind from nature?

yes ... but this is not the kind of affirmation that constitutes the everyday life of the human being .... the fact is that there is suffering and that the human being does not know how to deal with it, the only way he has found is to flee it.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 21 May 2018 #223
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 33 posts in this forum Offline

What I see as 'new' here is that human thought/thinking (in the psychological realm) has been going on in the 'dark'. Thought has not had an urgent need to 'become aware' of itself and now it does. Not for any personal reason but because it sees that if it continues in the 'old' way, there will or could be drastic results. Body awareness is important but thought awareness is critical, it seems to me. And thought can become aware, not as an observer looking at thought but as thought being aware of itself as a process. In exactly the same way that there can be an awareness of (in) my fingers striking these letters, there can be an awareness of the thoughts that are trying to communicate with you. It seems that we have 'gotten along' with out this 'attention' but the unawareness of thought/thinking/thinker (as individualism) has led to a lot of division among us. Bohm has written much about this. K. has spoken about it from the beginning.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 21 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 May 2018 #224
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 178 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
In exactly the same way that there can be an awareness of (in) my fingers striking these letters, there can be an awareness of the thoughts that are trying to communicate with you.

Quite so. I wouldn't put it that thought can be aware of itself as that makes 'thought' an entity that has its own awareness. It becomes clearer when one considers your analogy of the finger. There is an awareness of the finger typing but would it be accurate to say that the finger is aware of itself? Similarly, your analogy of body-awareness, is it that there is something called the body (different from the mind) that is aware of itself? When we see the difficulty here it may lead us to ask again, what is aware, or, what is the entity that is aware?

Awareness is a quality of the mind as a whole, which includes all the physical aspects we are calling body-awareness. That is to say, there is no independent thing we can call body-awareness; it is an aspect of the whole (the whole mind) that is focused on the body.

The only entity to speak of is the whole. When we differentiate the whole into parts it is only because the center of activity or of attention tends to focus here and then there, the attention flows from one aspect to another.

I have always been critical of phrases such as 'thought seeing itself' because they are fragmentary. Thought cannot see, thought thinks. Thought is nothing more than the thinking aspect of the whole movement of mind. 'Thought looking at itself' can mean no more than 'thought thinking about thought.'

Bohm dodged the problem by passing on the conception of 'thought as a system,' in which he included emotion, feeling and so on. He drew the compass of thought so broadly that he included all aspects of the human mind. In which case, why did he not just say 'the mind as a system?'

Thought is both a capacity (of the mind) and the working of that capacity. It is the outreach of emotion into a developmental field we call intellect. Emotion, which is the communicative field of feeling, further develops itself into language through which its field of communication expands into ever more abstract forms, which we then call thought. Therefore one cannot separate emotion from thought. Thought has not separated from its source but is simply the expression of that source (feeling/emotion) in a new domain. As the natural environment of the human being is lawful, which is to say it is made up of causal relationships which can be anticipated etc, so the field of thought learns to be lawful in order to correspond to its environment. We call that 'rationality.' The business of harnessing thought to reason is what we call 'intellect.' The abstract form of this we call 'logic.'

What I am trying to describe here is the way we give names to various moments or aspects of a continuous process and the dangers this presents when we are tempted to consider this continuous process as itself a causal chain of separate things - instinct, movement, feeling, emotion, thought.

I wrote earlier that Bohm made a mistake in coining the phrase 'thought as a system' when what he was really getting at was the nature of the mind as a system. Now I will point to another mistake. The mind is not a system, though it can be viewed in its systematic dimension, so long as one is cautious. The mind is not a system, it is an activity. It is an activity of the whole.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 24 May 2018 #225
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 178 posts in this forum Offline

"As in a circus the animals are trained to function for the amusement of spectators, so the individual through fear seeks out these spiritual trainers whom he calls priests and swamis, who are the defenders of spurious spirituality and the inanities of religion."

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day | May 24, 2018

But we've evolved beyond that, right? We're not here doing that, right?

Just checking

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 25 May 2018 #226
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 178 posts in this forum Offline

Oh Dan, you wrote an interesting post and I came back to respond to it but you've deleted it. That is a shame.

I recall it focused on the difference between K and other gurus in that K said not to follow, not to believe, not to create heroes, idols etc. Yes, I agree. He said that, but so do many of them. K always kept a tight group around him. One can call them followers or not. For me, K's difference is not that. It is that he did not create a fixed system of knowledge nor a hierarchy.

Even that is not the point however. To me it is about how we approach what he did say and whether or not we know when we have reached a limit in what we can actually and substantially see, perceive and act with. The problem seems to me to be that the mind comes to things with a willingness to exceed the point of substantial fact and to enter a state of imagination, which can be very emotionally appealing.

To actively perceive the point at which one exceeds oneself and enters imaginary knowing entails the honing of conscience. We have to be sharp and relentless when it comes to self-fooling. Proprioception of the tricks we play on ourselves is healthy, sane and absolutely necessary. And as it involves sense and sensibility it can be developed, trained, as any other sense. There is no method however. All that is required is constant attention. I am aware of just how much and how terribly we fail in that.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 25 May 2018 #227
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 33 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
We're not here doing that, right?

It's a good question. From my point of view it is that if I want something (spiritual) and I think that you have it and can give it to me then I will come to you and do whatever you say in order to get it. You may be a charlatan but I can't 'know' that so I am trapped, suckered, caught...But if you explain to me that you can't give me what I 'want' because what I want is an 'image' and doesn't exist and that it is my 'desire' that is driving my search. That what is called for is not 'adding' (attaching) something to myself but subtracting (negating) what is already there. And that this negation can only come about through knowing myself. And you cannot do that for me, no-one can do that for me, then I am 'free' to do what I will but I see that 'following' you (or anyone) is useless and wrong-headed. I can listen to you and others discuss the way you see our situation and see if it corresponds with the way I see myself or not...or how my understanding differs.

There's a country song with a title something like, "It ain't easy being easy." I think it applies similarly, "it ain't simple being simple". Maybe it is true that 'thought' won't be 'quiet' when it's not needed or necessary, because it fears being 'nothing'? Yet being 'nothing' is in a way being 'everything', No?

PS I found John's post (3rd conversation) to be an extraordinary discussion re 'attention' and our "messy conscience", That's why I deleted mine above but it was what it was at the time.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 26 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 06 Jun 2018 #228
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1 post in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
I wouldn't put it that thought can be aware of itself as that makes 'thought' an entity that has its own awareness.

What made you think thought is not an entity and not have its own awareness?

This post was last updated by Ravi Seth Wed, 06 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 06 Jun 2018 #229
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 178 posts in this forum Offline

Ravi Seth wrote:
What made you think thought is not an entity and not have its own awareness?

Well Ravi, that is my observation. Do you have a different observation?

An entity is a thing with a distinct and independent existence. My observation is that thought is not that.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 06 Jun 2018 #230
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 33 posts in this forum Offline

If we let go the distinction between my thought Paul's thought and Ravi's thought, the challenge to thought is can it be aware of itself?. As thought begins to ponder this it can ask itself, am 'I'(thought) aware that I am pondering this question? One thought has said it can't because I'm not an "entity" and only entities can be 'aware'. But as the thoughts appear, it seems that there is an awareness of them. Is the awareness in the brain that is producing these thoughts or is it in the thinking process itself? I don't know. I know about the thinker/thought duality and the thinker would certainly feel that 'he' is aware...but if the thinker is just a "trick" of thought, then the awareness that the thinker/me feels is really, an awareness of thought itself. If the 'thinker'/me is, or can be aware,then that sense of awareness actually belongs to the thinking process itself. Or possibly the brain...?

The strong implication that I get from K.'s talks and writings is that the only factor that can bring about an ending to psychological thought/time is thought itself. That thought must become aware of itself, that "there is no other factor".

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 06 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 06 Jun 2018 #231
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 178 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
But as the thoughts appear, it seems that there is an awareness of them. Is the awareness in the brain that is producing these thoughts or is it in the thinking process itself?

The answer is there in the question, Dan, in the way you have framed it.

"Thoughts appear." That is correct. They arise within the movement of the mind and the mind becomes aware of them, as it also becomes aware of many external things such as a cloud appearing. The thinking process is a process of the mind, as is the feeling process, the sensing process and the emoting process.

We have a sensory system that allows us to sense our own bodies but we do not ask if the sensory system is an entity "with a distinct and independent existence." Why then would we do so with thought?

Well, there is an answer to that last question and it lies in what K called the division between the thought and the thinker, the observer and the observed. The naive impression given by the self-reflective propensities of the mind is that it is looking at something that is acting independently. Thought seems to be 'not-me,' therefore arises the feeling of 'I and my thought.' Once thought is separated from the thinker it is one more step to considering thought as an entity in its own right.

I have found that a 'whole mind' perspective fits much better with what I actually experience. Thought is one activity of the mind, alongside motor control, sensation, emotion and so on. Thought being an activity rather than a thing-in-itself, it seems to me strange to consider it an independent and distinct entity, as absurd as if one were to consider a motor activity such as walking to be an 'entity.'

Incidentally, in Santaria, voodoo and candomble ceremonies, movement such as dance is put on the level of entity-possession. It must actually feel that an entity has entered and is dancing. So, even motor actions can be, under some circumstances and given certain beliefs, taken as entities. In religions such as Christianity, emotional states are taken as being in communion with God.

In all such cases, processes of alienation are involved. Something which is an activity of yourself is taken, in one form or another, as being independent.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 06 Jun 2018 #232
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 178 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The strong implication that I get from K.'s talks and writings is that the only factor that can bring about an ending to psychological thought/time is thought itself. That thought must become aware of itself, that "there is no other factor".

Please examine that carefully.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 06 Jun 2018 #233
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 33 posts in this forum Offline

Let's keep in mind when we talk about psychological thought that it has taken on the appearance of an 'entity' with the creation of 'Dan McDermott', 'Paul Davidson' and 'Ravi Seth' i.e....

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 07 Jun 2018 #234
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 178 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Let's keep in mind when we talk about psychological thought that it has taken on the appearance of an 'entity' with the creation of 'Dan McDermott', 'Paul Davidson' and 'Ravi Seth' i.e....

I agree, it wears the KIng's cloak, but that doesn't make it royalty.

I was writing earlier that the appearance of thought being its own master is due to the naivite of the mind, in a similar way that the sun appears to rotate around the Earth.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 08 Jun 2018 #235
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 33 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
the appearance of thought being its own master is due to the naivite of the mind

If thought is not doing its own 'composing', who or what is? Someone other than the 'thinker'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 08 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 08 Jun 2018 #236
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 178 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
If thought is not doing its own 'composing', who or what is? Someone other than the 'thinker'?

Thought is not doing its own thinking any more than the leg is doing its own walking or the heart is doing its own beating.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 08 Jun 2018 #237
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 178 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
If thought is not doing its own 'composing', who or what is? Someone other than the 'thinker'?

What are you calling 'the thinker?'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 08 Jun 2018 #238
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 33 posts in this forum Offline

The 'thinker' is the one who feels that he/she is 'thinking', having thoughts, thinking about something, pondering, etc. The 'thinker' is an 'entity' that feels itself to be separate from the process of thinking. That it is composing its 'own' thoughts. (Rather than that they are just coming up through a "trap door" into the 'light of day' by themselves.)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 08 Jun 2018 #239
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 178 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The 'thinker' is the one who feels . . .

That suggests it is 'one' of many, Dan. I wonder if you would give some more consideration to the trajectory of that thought.

I think K put it clearly. He said the 'thinker' is not an entity but a bundle of thought concentrated around the accumulation of unresolved hurts, which has been granted the appearance of acting as a center within the whole thought process of the mind.

Seen in this way, the 'thinker' he refers to is not actually a thinker at all but a nexus that has built up within thought, which is itself an activity of the mind, taken as a whole. Why then does it appear as a separate entity? How is the illusion accomplished?

Dan McDermott wrote:
The 'thinker' is an 'entity' that feels itself to be separate from the process of thinking.

But, seen from the above, the 'thinker' is not an entity but a specter.

What is happening in the mind? That is the question.

The mind has fallen into a trap of its own making. As the mind developed, during its infancy and subsequent to that, it did not grow into itself evenly but became lopsided. It was encouraged to do so by the human environment, rich with interactions, that fed it. It developed along a line of the supremacy of self-centered thinking, with overarching concerns about pleasure and pain, reward and punishment and above all, about 'me' and 'them.'

Its major terms of reference, as the mind built itself up, were more to do with the hurts it suffered and the triumphs it brought about than they were to do with love and collectivity (which however continued to play a part, though a subsidiary role). Those terms of reference became crystallized as psychological signposts on an increasingly stagnant roadmap from which it charted its directions through life.

Thought, emotion, feeling and even motor actions became shaped to the concerns of the ever-accumulating bundle that we call the 'self' or the 'thinker.'

I have described, in general terms, what the self is and how it comes into being in the form we have it (or suffer it). Now I can come to the issue of the perceived separation between the thinker and the thought.

It is a consequence of the 'self' (the constructed center) being what it is that the perception begins to arise and consolidate that this center has not been constructed from thought as a result of misunderstood experience, but that this center is the constructor of thought (the thinker) from which thought rises and falls as an act of will of the same center. The illusion takes shape that the center (the result of previous activity of the mind and its thought) is an entity in itself and is the very entity from which all the rest issues.

We have created an imaginary center to rule over us and imagine that this center has created us in a similar way we trick ourselves about 'God' the creator, which we have actually created ourselves. The whole thing needs to be turned on its head in order for it to be viewed correctly. And that is one of the wonderful things about K. He did it.

This post was last updated by Paul David son Fri, 08 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 08 Jun 2018 #240
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 33 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
We have created an imaginary center to rule over us and imagine that this center has created us in a similar way we trick ourselves about 'God' the creator, which we have actually created ourselves.

The only thought that occurs to me to add to your exposition is, not that 'we' have 'created' an "imaginary center"...but that we ARE the imaginary center. (Which is to say: nothing.)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 08 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 211 - 240 of 242 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.)