Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

max greene's Forum Activity | 7809 posts in 13 forums


Forum: The Sacred Fri, 05 Jun 2009
Topic: the purpose of being

The purpose of being,can it be without the conditioned "I ".Pure observation will not allow the Observer to be the observed.Thought is the thinker.Being is living in relationship with man,nature and all living creatures.This is a fact,not psychological 'I'.But wholistic intelligence operating,with love and compassion.What has no place in being, it is living and dying moment to moment.Can we thing together and test it in reality now.

Forum: The Sacred Fri, 05 Jun 2009
Topic: the purpose of being
max greene wrote:

The purpose of being,can it be without the conditioned "I ".Pure observation will not allow the Observer to be the observed.Thought is the thinker.Being is living in relationship with man,nature and all living creatures.This is a fact,not psychological 'I'.But wholistic intelligence operating,with love and compassion.What has no place in being, it is living and dying moment to moment.Can we thing together and test it in reality now.

Forum: The Sacred Fri, 05 Jun 2009
Topic: the purpose of being
max greene wrote:
max greene wrote:

The purpose of being,can it be without the conditioned "I ".Pure observation will not allow the Observer to be the observed.Thought is the thinker.Being is living in relationship with man,nature and all living creatures.This is a fact,not psychological 'I'.But wholistic intelligence operating,with love and compassion.What has no place in being, it is living and dying moment to moment.Can we thing together and test it in reality now.

Forum: The Sacred Fri, 05 Jun 2009
Topic: the purpose of being

max greene did not write the above. It is a total misquote. How can this happen in forums of this nature?

Forum: The Sacred Sat, 06 Jun 2009
Topic: the purpose of being

I agree, Bert, thought is the past and the present is accessible only through seeing. Here's a little scenario to demonstrate this:

Say that you are walking down a beautiful lane early in the morning, watching the birds, seeing the clouds, feeling the first warm breeze of the day. You are alert to all of this, aware of it all. Now a thought comes into your head of an unresolved business problem from yesterday. You begin to think about it, mull it over in your mind. You do this for several minutes. Now your mind comes back to your walk. I think you will find that those several minutes are actually blank, so far as being aware of what was happening on your walk. You were thinking, involved with the past, and you missed the present completely!

Forum: The Sacred Sun, 07 Jun 2009
Topic: the purpose of being

Richard,

Probably true compassion is possible only when knowledge is not operating, when thought and planning are absent. Anything else is sentiment and emotion.

Forum: The Sacred Sun, 07 Jun 2009
Topic: the purpose of being

Richard,

What is it that you are saying we can't look at with compassion?

Forum: The Sacred Sun, 07 Jun 2009
Topic: the purpose of being

Richard,

". . . we cannot talk reliably about a "compassion" which does not flow from knowledge."

True. Similarly,then, we cannot talk about love and understanding which does not flow from knowledge. But knowledge is the past, the known. I don't see love and understanding flowing from that. If it did, why are there such problems in the Middle East?

Forum: The Sacred Sun, 07 Jun 2009
Topic: the purpose of being

Peter,

Insight, understanding and self-knowledge may be disruptive to the course of one's life--but what can be done about it? Once one understands something, sees something for what it is, he simply can't go back and "unsee" it. One can find distractions (of which there are a-plenty in our pleasure-seeking society) or start drinking and taking drugs. By these means he can try to forget and try to dull his capacity to see and think--but facts are facts and they will remain so, whether he sees them or not.

All one can do is to be reasonable, to act reasonably, and to give to society that which it is due.

Forum: The Sacred Sun, 07 Jun 2009
Topic: the purpose of being

Richard,

Just possibly, that corruption is knowledge and thinking.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Mon, 08 Jun 2009
Topic: Krishnamurti and Bohm on the Physical Brain.....

Robert,

"My view is that due to our enculturation or conditioning by profoundly sick (or 'fallen') societies there is irreparable brain damage in the vast majority of people. And because of this mankind at large cannot find his way out of the present human dilemma . . ."

There is no way of knowing whether the vast majority of people have brain damage to the extent that they are physically unable to understand the critical problems with which they, and humanity, are faced. Humanity may just be on a one-way trip into chaos, with nothing to be done. As Boehm and Krishnamurti discussed at one time, somewhere along the line it appears humanity took a wrong turn.

But in the meantime, we will see what we will see, brain damaged or not. In this vein, here's a question: Is the brain the seat of a sixth sense, in addition to the five we have identified? I'm not talking about something paranormal or mystical, I'm suggesting that the brain has a sixth sense called "understanding." My reasoning here is that understanding is often called "seeing," and I wonder if that isn't exactly what it is--seeing with the brain.

It would be this "sixth sense" that would be most affected by enculturation and conditioning.

Forum: The Sacred Mon, 08 Jun 2009
Topic: the purpose of being

"It is not a deeper understanding of myself."

No it isn't. You have to do that on your own time!

Forum: The Sacred Mon, 08 Jun 2009
Topic: Is thought thinking?

Peter

"I don't see thinking as different to thought. Where is the mind of the one person to change to thinking?"

Would "thought" be the memory itself, and "thinking" be the act of recalling the memory? If this is the case, thinking, not thought, interferes with observation when the brain/mind is occupied with thinking. Thought is just passively sitting in the memory bank.

I don't see thought as ever being able to "do" anything. Thought--any thought, every thought--is a construction of the brain. As a construction, thought is passive, mechanical and has no life. Thought can't "create" anything--only a living organism can create. Thought can do only what the brain, the organism, tells it to do--probably via another thought.

Forum: The Sacred Tue, 09 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

"maybe we can talk about overcoming the fear of death. We can create a wonderful humanity.I mean it seriously, my friends."

Maybe we should say, "understanding the fear of death."

Consciousness appears to be the totality of thought. But thought is memory. Is that all our consciousness is--just memories of the past?

Somewhere K said, "This world could be a paradise." Hah. Not in our lifetime.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Tue, 09 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

Phil,

Are you aware of this silence when you look at the tree?

I've got one other question: "You see one can see a tree nonverbally but not necessarily without a state of emotion . . ." Could you expand on this a bit?

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Tue, 09 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

Phil

It seems to me that emotion is thinking. If you are looking at something non-verbally but still feel emotion as you look at it, I feel you are thinking about it--and therefore not really seeing it but instead seeing something else, conjured up by your emotion.

Come to think of it (a poor expression, in this context) is it possible to have a non-verbal emotion? Hate, for example--what is it if you don't name it?

But let's get on with the "I," what it is and where it came from, etc.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Wed, 10 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

Phil,

I told you I wasn't much of a technician. I spent 45 minutes carefully responding to points in the above and then hit something and erased it all. So here is a very abbreviated version of what I had written.

You mentioned early on in your last post that maybe a wind could blow the "I" out of the consciousness. I've had a sneaking feeling that just maybe the "I" is identical to, the same as, consciousness. Perhaps they are one and the same.

You wrote some good stuff. I might mention a couple of things.

As you said, there isn't any psychological time. But K remarked somewhere, speaking of time, that there is sequence. That would be physical sequence, I'm sure.

Glad Crick was able to show that there isn't any "I."

And you pointed out that the psychological "I" is as much protected as the physical "I," and how this leads to internal and external conflict. Couldn't agree more.

I'm really irritated that I lost all that I had written. But I'm just not going to go back.

You mentioned the past, present, and future. I will try to reconstruct what I had written on this. As you said, there isn't any past or future and the present is fleeting. I would say, like very fleeting. Scientists have gotten it down to nano-seconds (or smaller?) and they are still working on it. I'm saying there is something beyond time, and I call it the Now. There has to be a "now," or a Now, otherwise there could not be a past. Beyond time, I say, because this "now," or Now, has to be the same Now throughout the universe, not the slightest wavering lapse. As an aside, true creation can take place only in the Now, simply because it is impossible to create in the past. Can we ever catch up to, i.e. understand, this ultimate present through the mechanism of experimentation and thought? I don't think so, since experimenting and thought are tools, built by and for the past--analyzing and remembering what has already been created.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Thu, 11 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

Phil,

You have enough in your posting that begins, "Well, it's a beautiful day . . . " (I have a Safari browser, and for some reason it covers up the posting date) to get us going, and then some, in our discussion on this subject of the "I." Why don't we use that posting as a basis for our discussion?

So let's take this, "There is no past, there is no future and the present is gone in a fleeting moment leading to a new me every second."

What I was saying in my last post, the last paragraph, is that so long as there is even a second, or fraction thereof--no matter how small--it's not going to be a new you. There can't be a new you, because the new fraction implies either a preceding fraction, in which case that preceding fraction is the new you, or zero, in which case you didn't exist at all, so far as time is concerned.

I'm saying that the zero, where the me, the "I," doesn't exist in time is a condition we can call the Now, a condition beyond time. There obviously has to be this Now because we exist! We couldn't have been, can't be, "created" in the past--nothing can be created in the past--and all of time is the past. And I mean all of it.

The implication in all of this is tremendous. It implies that "we," as a conscious "we," will never experience living in the present. As a "we," we cannot. Anything already created can't go back, and consciousness is old. But we are living physical organisms, and the act of living, by definition, has to mean the present. And we ARE living in the present because cells are constantly coming into being, cells are dying and being replaced. The "coming into being" and the "replacing" just have to be in the Now, because they couldn't have come from the past.

Is it possible to fully be in the creative present, the Now? What happens to the "I"?

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Fri, 12 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

Phil,

There are a lot of questions in all of this, wouldn't you say"

It appears that the thought of the "I" is just that--a single thought in the left side of the brain. What is not clear to me is what is meant by the "Ego," apparently a right-side phenomenon. (Correct me if I am off base on any of this.)

I have questions as to the origin of the Ego and the mechanics associated with the I/Ego: Since the "I" is just a thought, a construct, it cannot create the Ego. The Ego has to be created by the organism itself, as only a living being is capable of creation. I understand that the emotions are tied to the Ego (did the organism create the Ego as a vehicle for the emotions, or are the emotions the Ego itself?). It takes an entity to feel an emotion, and that entity has to be the psychological "I,"--the organism doesn't feel emotion: it either sees or doesn't see, hears or doesn't hear, hurts or doesn't hurt. So the emotions refer back to the psychological "I," and are linked to it. They are a package. Now here's the question: If the psychological "I" is just a phony and not needed, just an illusion we have created, what shall we do about the emotions linked only to this illusionary "I"? It would appear that there is no need for emotions, either.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Fri, 12 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

Kirsten,

"thoughts are part of the body too, so thoughts pop up all the time, and "I" am giving meaning to those thoughts."

I've wondered about this a bit. It would seem that the brain, in thinking, would emit some type of energy, something similar to a radio emitting radio waves. I'm not a physicist, but radio waves must be material--photons, zenophons, or something. If I can be shown that radio waves are material, then I'm going to say, with just a little extension, spinning, stringing, that thought waves are material also. And if thinking is material, the psychological "I" has some basis in materiality. This, of course, doesn't mean this "I" has any necessary function. It is still only a construct.

Forum: The Sacred Fri, 12 Jun 2009
Topic: The purpose of being

We ask, "What is the purpose in Being?" when we are looking for security or trying to reach a goal. We ask when we are not really living--we're busy with these motives.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Fri, 12 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

Jonathan,

I've always been a bit suspicious of the word, "focus." I've played a little chess in my life. Years ago one of the best chess players in the world said that the game didn't require concentration so much as it required attention.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sat, 13 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

Jonathan,

Yes, the "I" is indeed a construct, as you say. But are you missing the point that as a construct the "I," by its very nature, can't do anything or create anything? The "I" just sits there, growing fat and bloated and blocking the view.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sun, 14 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

jonathan,

Please forgive this "re-write." For some reason I've been having trouble with being locked out of this site, missing posts, etc. I don't know whether it is with my computer or with Kinfonet. I thought my original posting had been zapped. So close your eyes to the following.

"The "I" has self-integrative properties, it want to belong to something, a group, an idea, something bigger, a loved one, and all the rest of it."

As you say, the "I" is a construct. As a construct, it is is obviously unable to do anything or create anything on its own. All the "I" can do is sit there becoming fat and bloated and blocking the view.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sun, 14 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

Phil,

"I think then that the "I" we have been talking about keeps its illusion going as a mental construct but it is supported by the emotion that the right brain puts on the self image or ego. So what I have said so far would mean that it is much easier for the "I" to end its concept of its own existence when it becomes aware of the illusion because the side that contains the specific verbal "I" may never had trusted the right brain in the first place."

The "I" isn't capable of ending a concept or becoming aware of an illusion or of taking any kind of action. The "I" is a passive construct. Only the physical organism can act, and the physical organism is the one pulling the strings in the brain. What is the mechanism of coordination between the two sides, left and right?

Dr. Bohm has said, ". . . conditioning constitutes a subtle kind of brain damage." Is it possible that brain-damaged people are the ones who rise to the top in a field? They stand out, in one way or another, by way of their conditioning. Bobby Fisher, for example, was a neurotic (perhaps mad) individual who rose to become nearly unbeatable at chess. Van Gogh was insane. What about K himself, who suffered most of his life with the "process"?

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sun, 14 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

Daniel,

I finally get around to saying welcome. Been having trouble with my postings.

"If we come back to the computer comparison, the "I" analysing would be just a tool, a mean like the bird knows how to build a nest and find food . . . "

The "I" is mostly just a hindrance to fast action. Say you are walking and you stumble. You--the physical you--doesn't bother with a thought process through the "I." That would be much too slow. You would get hurt, so your physical reflexes instantly take over. No "I" needed.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Sun, 14 Jun 2009
Topic: Is it impossible to live with nonattachment in LIFE?

What is meant by "non-attachment"?

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sun, 14 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

Kirsten,

Yes, "My, I hope nobody saw me stumble." But the "I" didn't say that. "I's" can't think or talk. The physical organisim thinks and talks. The "I" itself is only a thought--a thought that everything we say and do seems to be pinned to. Is this thought intermediary necessary? Is this set-up Thinker necessary?

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sun, 14 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

Phil,

"here are enough signals across the corpus collosum that the two brains can create an illusion of one consciousness."

Do you mean the physical organism has two consciousnesses? (hope I got enough 's's' in that)

"Conditioning is another topic in itself which I am not ready to attack until we get all this other explained as is who might be conditioned and who these two beings are."

It would appear to me that only the physical organism can be conditioned, as it is the only entity alive and subject to being influenced. Something not alive, such as a thought, can be modified and built upon, but is this what is meant by "conditioning"?

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Mon, 15 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

Avril,

Phil has pointed out in his posts that the psychological "I" is a thought that appears in the left side of the brain, while the Ego, which apparently is mostly the emotions, appears in the the right side. Scientists with their probes have been unable to find a physical site for the "I," but probes on the right side of the brain have discovered specialized sites for emotions. (stop me quick if I'm wrong here, Phil.)

Since emotions have no reason for existence except in relation to an "I," and since the physical organism itself has no need for emotions (the organism just senses, assimilates, rejects--in some respects like a living machine) it follows that the emotions relate to the psychological "I." The "I" and the Ego can be considered as one--a package.

The big question--a burning question--is, "Why did the physical organism create the psychological "I"? One of the basic laws of physics, a law apparently applicable throughout the universe, has to do with inertia: a body in motion or at rest has a tendency to remain at motion or at rest. So everything in the universe resists change. When this basic law is applied to the physical organism--to us-- we find that it is natural--our nature--that we want to live forever. We don't want to change our state of living by dying. So the organism resists change by thinking of itself as not being subject to dying, and it sets up the thought of a separate "I" in the left side of its brain. So now there is a psychological "I," that must be protected from dying. Threats against the "I" must be warded off. It probably didn't take too long in mankind's history before threats to the "I" gave rise to the emotion of fear in the right side of the brain. Fear is the basic emotion from which all the other emotions rise. But that's another story.

Like I say, it's a burning question. No doubt there are some who will think this supposed answer should be burned.