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

Evolution


Displaying posts 241 - 248 of 248 in total
Fri, 08 Jun 2018 #241
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 187 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
not that 'we' have 'created' an "imaginary center"...but that we ARE the imaginary center.

I am using the word "we" in that context to stand for 'the mind.' The mind has created a center that it imagines is the creative force behind mind. The center is real but it is not the creative force (the thinker) that the mind considers it to be. So what is this center that is not itself imaginary but which has been given an imaginary quality of omnipotence?

It is simply a complex program, like a computer program, but which has a profile (a self image) which it is programmed to defend as if life and death depends on it. This center has been programmed to mirror the whole in its own image. It also has a role in being the progenitor of actions that arise in its own defense, which also gives it the superficial appearance of being an independent actor, an 'entity.'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 #242
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 38 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
What are you calling 'the thinker?'

The 'thinker' is me. I am the thinker. I/thinker am the one who gets 'hurt'. 'Thought' doesn't get hurt, I do. That's obvious. But the thinker/me is not separate from thought. The thinker/me and thought are the same...that's not so obvious, is it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 19 Jun 2018 #243
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 187 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The 'thinker' is me. I am the thinker. I/thinker am the one who gets 'hurt'. 'Thought' doesn't get hurt, I do. That's obvious. But the thinker/me is not separate from thought. The thinker/me and thought are the same...that's not so obvious, is it?

I am not sure why you have returned to that point, Dan, having already answered it. In an earlier post you stated,

Dan McDermott wrote:
"The 'thinker' is an 'entity' that feels itself to be separate from the process of thinking. That it is composing its 'own' thoughts.

I still disagree. The separate thinker is an invention of the mind so how can it get hurt? The feeling that there is a separate thinker that gets hurt is still an invention. No, thought does not get hurt but neither does the thinker.

You write: "'Thought' doesn't get hurt, I do.

But the 'I' is part of thought, a fictitious entity created from the material of thought.

Probably it is useful to consider what form this hurt takes and how it is felt. Is this hurt not a disturbance in thought? Is it anything more or less than that? We put a name to it and call it 'hurt' but it's a disturbance, is it not?

Go into it. What is psychological hurt. Don't analyse it. Just feel it. Find out if it is any more than a particular kind of disturbance within thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 19 Jun 2018 #244
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 187 posts in this forum Offline

The mind has been programmed in such a way that one fragment of it acts as if it were the center, but it is not the center as there is no actual center in the mind. The mind has no dimensions as such. One can regard the brain, or the neurological structures of the brain as a sort of network topology but the mind is only an activity of the brain and is not a physical structure in and of itself.

It is the mind that thinks, or rather, the brain. Thought is part of the mental activity of the brain. The 'I' does not control the brain. The 'I' does not control the mind, though an impression is created in the mind that there is such an independent entity as the soul that is the animating source of the whole thing. We are giving the name 'I' to a multi-faceted programme within thought, which has been built within thought by the whole activity of the brain.

Thought cannot think. Thought cannot feel. Thought has no center. It is an instrumental process, an activity with various functions, one of which we are calling the 'I.' The 'I' cannot think, cannot feel, cannot be anything than what it is, a movement within a movement within the whole, an activity.

This post was last updated by Paul David son Tue, 19 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 19 Jun 2018 #245
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 38 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
The 'I' cannot think, cannot feel, cannot be anything than what it is, a movement within a movement within the whole, an activity.

When it's all held at arm's length, that sounds like a proper analysis, but can you say the same thing more 'personally' like this: "I cannot think, cannot feel, cannot be anything than what I am, a movement within a movement within the whole, an activity"?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 19 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 19 Jun 2018 #246
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 187 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
can you say the same thing more 'personally' like this: "I cannot think, cannot feel, cannot be anything than what I am

If this were to be said, what would it mean? I have been considering 'the I.' I have written that 'the I' is a product of thought. Yet if I were to say "I cannot feel," the use of the word 'I,' which is then the ordinary first person, has changed.

Obviously there is the experience of feeling, that fact of thinking and the reality of being. To emit a sentence that would in effect be the denial of all that would be ridiculous.

What is in contention here is not the fact of feeling, thinking and being but the identity of that which is feeling, thinking and being. Is it the fictitious "I," created from the material of thought yet experienced as something separate from thought, a sort of power over the mind, that is feeling, thinking and being? Or is it the human being taken as a whole, which is feeling, thinking and being, of which the fictitious 'I' is only a repeating movement in mentation?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 20 Jun 2018 #247
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 187 posts in this forum Offline

The evolution of empathy, imitation and . . . fun!

https://abcnews.go.com/US/bear-jumping-year-boy...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Jun 2018 #248
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 187 posts in this forum Offline

THE EVOLUTION OF MEMORIES

The problems involved in accepting testimonies based on memory as legal or historical evidence have been the life study of Professor Elizabeth Loftus of the University of Washington, an American psychologist who has written several books and numerous scientific papers on the subject. She has, additionally, appeared in over one hundred courtrooms as an expert witness on the fallibility of eyewitness accounts. She noted, for example, in her most recent book on the subject:

"As new bits and pieces of information are added into long-term memory, the old memories are removed, replaced, crumpled up, or shoved into comers. Little details are added, confusing or extraneous elements are deleted, and a coherent construction of the facts is gradually created that may bear little resemblance to the original event.

"Memories don't just fade, as the old saying would have us believe; they also grow. What fades is the initial perception, the actual experience of the events. But every time we recall an event, we just reconstruct the memory, and with each recollection the memory may be changed – cored by succeeding events, other people's recollections or suggestions, increased understanding, or a new context.

Truth and reality, when seen through the filter of our memories, are not objective facts but subjective, interpretative realities. We interpret the past, correcting ourselves, adding bits and pieces, deleting uncomplimentary or disturbing recollections, sweeping, dusting, tidying things up. Thus, our representation of the past lakes on a living, shifting reality; it is not fixed and immutable, not a place way back there that is preserved in stone, but a living thing that changes shape, expands, shrinks, and expands again, an amoebalike creature with powers to make us laugh, and cry, and clench our fists. Enormous powers – powers even to make us believe in something that never happened."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 241 - 248 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.)