KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

You know, I'm not a brain specialist, perhaps Professor Wilkinson, Dr Bohm can help us. I think it affects the brain, the brain cells - fear. I've watched many, many people in fear, their minds, their brain is not active, is not agile, fresh, young, it's a kind of disease that eats into one's mind and one's heart, into one's whole being. And if we don't understand the disease but are only concerned with the curing of it, then it will never - we are just playing with each other.k

joe wrote:

objective means all is seen dispassionately, yes?  So does a second subjectivity.  The only difference here is that you prefer the word objective, it seems.  I find that word misleading, particularly when it comes to these matters.  You see objective is infallible and I do not. K was not objective, nor jesus or any of your list of ten you are parading here, they were human beings viewing from the perspective they had (which by its nature must be subjective).  You may think they were objective but that is a subjective guess, and nothing you can know definitively.

In your book I'm (surprise, surprise) guessing again.

I'm not.

I'll explain again: there are two modes of brain operation which are quite different from one another. The first (which is caught-up in error) is 'ratiocination'. The second (which is clean) is 'reflection on insight'.

Knowing nothing of the latter you make the (perpetual) error of supposing that there is only the former, basically because its the one you choicelessly operate.

Fortunately, not all the world is the same - having the same limited vision - as joe.

LMP wrote:

awareness wrote:

LMP wrote:

Im not sure, perhaps. I would describe it more like an inability to let it go, but I try. I used to feel 'no', but now I feel 'yes'. Its still not clear to me what it is.

hm, yes, there is always fear in connection with something, fear of something. this is a trick of thought to can move from an imagined fear of that to an fear of that, then there comes all sorts of escapes, of pleasures, going in cinema, drinking a glass of beer, having sex and so on. if you would have the energy, which hadnt wasted in a job and by other confusions, so you would haf the energy to challange that fear, a fear of all incl. fear of death, and would focus this fear, be this fear and holding it in the moment of its very flowering and not moving from this very big flower, in which there is no place for a breath...and standing there alone in this, like a man in the storm, like one focuss a dragon, which increase with the focussing, then ...you would see something...how this dragon increases so much you havent seen that....and then..you will see how the flower, which is the dragon, which is fear, withered. do you have seen in nature how wonderful the flower is before she withered?

I wished to say thx or comment on what you wrote, but then I started talking to my son about how my preferences in life have changed and how I want to live simpler, quit working, sell the apartment and so forth. He said he felt I should do it. Then we went to play badminton and I went out to take pictures of birds.

Thank you each for this beautiful conversation.

wilbro99 wrote:

Oh heavens R00ts, let me lay out our difference one more time. I don't expect you to collect what I am saying, but there might be others out there who may find that difference interesting.

It’s all very well you feeling exasperated willy old thing but think about how it feels from this end where on top of all the same communication frustrations, I have to watch and endure all the antics that you pair don’t even know you’re up to; the very things that are preventing the communication and thus causing the exasperation in the first place.

Let us take a close look at these latest statements of yours:

Let's posit the pseudo-I as the only sense of self; the whole of it being in error. Given such a posit, there can be no transcendence because that sense of self is the only sense of self.

What you’re saying is, that positing the entirely erroneous pseudo ‘I’ as the all has the effect of removing any possibility of a transcendent in the reasoning that all and any sensing must (then) necessarily belong to the pseudo ‘I’.

Ok, let's look at it. Firstly: let me point out that such a proposition could only possibly be presented by the real time ‘I’. Why? Because within this linguistic structure the ‘I’ makes an assumption of no ‘other’ whilst it itself is pseudo. Hence, what the real-time ‘I’ (i.e. you. That's not a slight, we’re just talking) is positing here is that a real pseudo lies within the realms of possibility. It's a patent nonsense; a logical absurdity.

Within this structure of yours the pseudo posits (and thus in your created circumstance ipso facto decrees) that it itself is all there is; the pseudo!? (This I have also pointed out to you many times: that you unwittingly argue from a premise of ‘no true’).

I wonder if you are able to comprehend the enormity of such a proposition, which is at once the ‘I’s Valhalla (actually the unwitting reason you posit it) and at the same time a logical absurdity; which yet has you suckered in again.

It is a glitch that must be seen via an insight that the very sense of self we reflect upon is ersatz.

And here once again we have the undoing of a willy plot: first you posit a pseudo which is the all and which (hence) can have no transcendent; and then - low and behold, at the wave of a wand (and for the millionth unwitting time) - you lend a transcendent, which, for reasons best known to it (i.e. yourself) must observe the foregoing pseudo.

Willy – harken: there is no transcendent and the pseudo is ipso facto not real. Both of your persisting premises are unreal. The former because it doesn’t exist and the latter because it is nothing more than a corruption of the real (or true) perpetrated, and then unwittingly (but constantly) indulged, by your brain.

Take a while to look at it willy, not least because it represents you yourself laid out in print. The quintessence of all your argumentation (which your ‘I’ will yet never allow your otherwise clever mind to spot) is a logical absurdity.

(I would add that this could also be the explanation behind the biblical statement: “from he that has not, will be taken even that which he has.” This requires no agent; the passage merely advises that the ‘I’ itself manages to rob even the most intellectually clever [but yet lack insight] of their logic and reason).

Would you like me to on and look at your second ‘R00ts wrote’ here? It evidences no more clear sightedness but I’m happy to go into it if you care.

What is of more interest to me is how you will react to the foregoing. There can be no doubt that it represents a challenge to your ‘I’, but will you allow that? Or will you once again let it drag you into one of the three? I know – you possessing the undisputed cleverness of willy - that if you choose, in preference to facing up, once again to run with one or any combination of the three, that it will be subtle, and that I will have my work cut-out unpicking it; but unpick it I will; just to show you (calmly and collectedly) once again what has occurred; which is to say what you will have once more unwittingly done.

Last edited by Roots (2012-06-21 05:59:06)

i guess you took it to heart, willy, and decided to take your turn.  All that dragging is rough but at least the rigor makes it not so slumpy. 

What is trump again?

well the baseball clubs use the diamond, of course...keep up the good work, the field looks great and ready for action.

Last edited by joe (2012-06-21 17:37:45)

The Other Difference:

The culprit in this matter of self always seems to be tied in with thought, like there is this fundamental error in thinking that either creates problems for the thinker, or creates the thinker that is the problem; either way, take you pick as you think it is.

I think what should be done up front is think a bit about the act of thinking itself. What follows are my thoughts on this act, all designed to point to what I myself see as the fundamental error. As such, this blog is a pitch. As this is my first blog, this is my first pitch.

So, hello all. This is William Iodine Brown, and I thought I would see if this arm of KFA was better place to communicate in than the forum is. Here is my pitch:

Thought basically uses sameness and difference to put together a description using words that paints the picture desired to be seen. Anyway, that is how I view the operation of thought; as a way to get another to see what you see when that to be seen is not capable of being seen by the body's eye. I could say, then, that the seeing thought uses is seen by the mind's eye and make it stick.

When I look at the physical world, all the differences are there to be described, from the spectrum of colors and sizes on one hand to the between of things from the smallest to the largest. Here, the sameness is determined by the lack of differences.

When I look at the world seen by the mind's eye, the differences are all imagined, except one; that being the difference that places that mind's eye in the body, where it belongs, that grounds it in the senses. Until that difference is available to be thought, the mind's eye can only be located in the mind, in the image that dances with the words.

That singular difference is coined by any change capable of being registered in memory that prevents the thought of self from attaining and holding continuity. I could describe it as something happening to the me to whom things happen, which registers as the break up of me, the negation of the me, or as the difference that an absence creates.

Ok, full circle, like there is this fundamental error in thinking that either creates problems for the thinker, or creates the thinker that is the problem; either way, and to know the difference is know that difference.

I suspect all I have said is that there is a change capable of changing one's mind in an absolute way. As to what it registers as, well, that's one for the books.

Roots wrote:

joe wrote:

well the baseball clubs use the diamond, of course...keep up the good work, the field looks great and ready for action.

. . . . you'd know?

hiya roots...how's it going?

finally the idiots have reached planet earth !

joe wrote:

i guess you took it to heart, willy, and decided to take your turn.  All that dragging is rough but at least the rigor makes it not so slumpy.

You do not see then joe (my old tank trap set to spot quarks) despite its being laid out very clearly, carefully and indesputably for even the most intellectually challenged to discern, that at 708 willy posited a logical absurdity? Nor either that he (repeatedly) introduces a transcendent which he simultaneously denies the existence of?

It would seem then that it isn’t just willy who gets trammelled into irrationality, who on that account gets ‘off his trolley’; ‘out of his tree’ but (and as though one didn’t know it) his partner in crime also.

Have another look at it joe; see if you can get past this self induced trammelling.

Last edited by Roots (2012-06-24 08:59:38)

willy wrote:

el jefe, I have noticed before large spikes in 'page views' of this thread that occur somewhere between 06:00 and 09:00 so I have been watching this happening with interest.

For the last three days, that time period has registered three to four hundred page view each day.

Any ideas? It's a puzzle.

el jefe, it is no longer a puzzle; there is a way to add about 100 page views in a minute. I suspect that makes page views only a measure of carpel tunnel syndrome.

ah yes, an entry...puzzles.

We have one on the kitchen table at most times, it is always a good way for the family to spend some time together.  We are all different in our approach and this diversity lends to ease of puzzle solving.  My youngest son is excellent at identification of minute details, my wife is a good over-viewer and when the other two boys come home they likewise have different strengths. Takes a village it does...

anyway, puzzling, isn't it?  On one hand there is the admonition (influenced by K) that any movement to solve is the self in action and on the other hand we know that solution is a necessary component to healthy functioning.  We are thrown into a conundrum if we follow both of these separate and seemingly logical conclusions.   If taken together perhaps this conundrum does not exist but taken separately or weighting one more than the other there is no escaping it.