KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

joe wrote:

natura wrote:

joe wrote:

the only thing I will clear up is a language usage, natura, since I know you will take it only as that...when you mean to imply the beginning or start of something, the word is first.  When you want to imply a hand that is clenched together the word is fist.

Joe, sorry
Please explain
Don’t forget whom is this thread dedicated to.

to you natura...in the last week I have noticed several times you using the word "fist" instead of the word "first".  Of course I knew you meant to imply first, but since it has happened more than twice I thought you would want to know.

Thanks for leting me know, joe, appreciate that

Kirsten suggests it is a Freudian slip

tree wrote:

you've been understood,

to know the taste of the soup
one need not eat the whole bowl
a spoonful will do

Yes, well, there are occasions where you and I connect, as if on some level yet to be determined there is a common form. Stumps, look, there is no shame, nor any approbation necessary, if communicating is fun.

There are times to have a feast, like a time to celebrate the tool that allows us to meet in meaning, that captures our imagination because it is our imagination painting what we mean in hues of paint, or bronze, or words; well. you get the drift…

Pass me another bowl, and yet another…

wilbro99 wrote:

tree wrote:

you've been understood,

to know the taste of the soup
one need not eat the whole bowl
a spoonful will do

Yes, well, there are occasions where you and I connect, as if on some level yet to be determined there is a common form. Stumps, look, there is no shame, nor any approbation necessary, if communicating is fun.

There are times to have a feast, like a time to celebrate the tool that allows us to meet in meaning, that captures our imagination because it is our imagination painting what we mean in hues of paint, or bronze, or words; well. you get the drift…

Pass me another bowl, and yet another…

bon appetit

beans wrote:

wilbro99 wrote:

beanzy, you wouldn't string me along, would you? Ah, the shell you say? Sometimes a sport mutates into a sport and we get a whole new kettle of fish. I think they call it bouillabaisse.

The image that sits in the middle of my words looks like this from where I am presently standing. Imagine the two of us have a magical crystal ball that we can pass back and forth as a way of communicating, tag it as language and that seems to fit nicely.

I put my meaning into it and pass it to you, where you see the form of the meaning, not its content, and fill that form with your own meaning. You pass it back to me and I see the form of your meaning and fill it. Passing it back and forth is what we here call taking a walk.

Were I to describe that image again, the words may be different, but the form is the same. The form is what we tag as understanding. Understand?

As This Gourmont guy said, we reflect what is reflected in our glass. Here is another guy:

"The only fundamental basis for understanding is that one understands only in proportion to becoming himself that which he understands." (Kierkegaard: Papers, V B 40)

I think it follows that if one is not good at forming their understanding, communication might be a bear.

Sorry, willy, but no strings or shell games here. Yeah, I'll leave the fish fry up to y'all for now :-)

A lobster for me, please

OK, willy, I think I got ya.

I think it also follows that if one’s understanding is not consistent, it is because they themselves are not consistent. Is inconsistent understanding really any understanding at all? It seems it is understanding, just that it changes measurable over time. Which means that they change measurable over time.

Everyone’s understanding changes to some extent as they are exposed to the world, but some seem to have an understanding that is near complete. Although who is to say what complete is….or what right is…Then there are people who are extremely consistent in the content of their communication, but there are obvious misunderstandings mixed in.

beans wrote:

(Oh well, I had a better one set up, but this will work in reply.)

http://www.angelfire.com/home/lake/imag … squirt.gif

What else could be better than this one?

First to invite for fried fish and then like this…

Must be returned…

Yes, but the brain and body are still functioning...

Let's see, to whom shall I dedicate this wonk? I usually pick on my stumpy buddy, tree, but he is on his way out of Dodge, so I thought I could lay the albatross on another, instead of the cross.

Instead of a cross too heavy to carry, an albatross about one's neck. "Ah! Well a day!"

Ok, Eden, you are it. I dedicate this wonk to Eden. I shall give the secret of wonk away so that ye may also become a wonk. Wonks unite!

= = == === ===== ======== (am I fibbing?)

Let's begin with a change in perception capable of creating a triple case, two of which are separated by an absolute disjunction, and the other of which is aware of that absolute difference.

Let there be a change in perception and let the following three cases follow as the possible states of reflection upon that change.

If the reflection is upon the same in the one that was as is in the one that is, the one that was is continuous with the one that is. This is the straight line.

If the reflection is upon the difference between the two, the one that was is different from the one that is, and the change is of a difference. This line curves.

If this line curves into a reflection on its own, the one that was is the was of the one who is. This is the self, the me, the ego, the conditioned mind, the thinker, oh hell, you tag it.

Now, let the third reflection come into being, however it comes about, as an awareness of the change of perception between a was and an is.

See, Eden, that third reflection would break that circular reflection on the spot. The me-cord would be cut and all of the tools for survival, including the thought/image complex, would be available for use.

In other words: "Before proceeding any further, he considered whether or not what he at this point called consciousness was what usually called reflection. He formulated the relevant definition as follows: Reflection is the possibility of the relation; consciousness is the relation, the first form of which is contradiction. As a result, he also noted reflection's categories are always dichotomous. For example, ideality and reality, soul and body, to know the true, to will the good, to love the beautiful, God and the world, etc. are categories of reflection. In reflection, they touch each other in such a way that a relation becomes possible. The categories of consciousness, however, are trichotomous, as language also demonstrates, for when I say, I am conscious of this sensory impression, I am expressing a triad. Consciousness is mind [Aand], and it is remarkable that when one is divided in the world of mind, there are three, never two. Consciousness, therefore, presupposes reflection. If this were not the case, then it would be impossible to explain doubt." (Kierkegaard; Johannes Climacus, tr. Hong, pp. 168-69)

"pass the Windbag Law...now!"

Thanks for cutting the ribbon tree. I have made a new year's resolution of sorts based upon several considerations.

First, the format of this forum sucks, especially for PST viewing; there being no way to keep up with the new postings I find in the morning. Some threads have one-lined themselves into the next page and beyond. 

Second, I have been, expectedly, more or less talking to myself, so I thought I would make this thread my office. If you want to walk the wonk with willy, here is the place to do it, or not. I would call it the willy-nilly niche.

Beginning 01/01/12, I shall check, on a regular basis, only comments posted in this thread and respond only to comments posted in this thread. The added benefit is that those who do not care to read wonk can simply ignore this thread, and that I will keep my wonky way out of another's thread.

Tree, if you want to keep my office open by stumping for your [i][b][u]this[u][b][i], be my guest. I reserve the right to ignore, or dodge, any posts I sense no urge to reply to.

Check you guns with the marshal when entering Dodge. 

The Mayor of Dodge.

Postum Scriptum: Perhaps, sapling, you can play with your one liners here, as you are now doing, and spare other threads from your nonsense.

I will make that sacrifice for the good of the forum. I shall tag it as the rooty rumpus room.

The Windbag Law:

wilbro99 wrote:

Beginning 01/01/12, I shall check, on a regular basis, only comments posted in this thread and respond only to comments posted in this thread.

The Mayor of Dodge.

thank you, mr mayor

wilbro99 wrote:

Thanks for cutting the ribbon tree. I have made a new year's resolution of sorts based upon several considerations.

First, the format of this forum sucks, especially for PST viewing; there being no way to keep up with the new postings I find in the morning. Some threads have one-lined themselves into the next page and beyond. 

Second, I have been, expectedly, more or less talking to myself, so I thought I would make this thread my office. If you want to walk the wonk with willy, here is the place to do it, or not. I would call it the willy-nilly niche.

Beginning 01/01/12, I shall check, on a regular basis, only comments posted in this thread and respond only to comments posted in this thread. The added benefit is that those who do not care to read wonk can simply ignore this thread, and that I will keep my wonky way out of another's thread.

Tree, if you want to keep my office open by stumping for your [i][b][u]this[u][b][i], be my guest. I reserve the right to ignore, or dodge, any posts I sense no urge to reply to.

Check you guns with the marshal when entering Dodge. 

The Mayor of Dodge.

Postum Scriptum: Perhaps, sapling, you can play with your one liners here, as you are now doing, and spare other threads from your nonsense.

I will make that sacrifice for the good of the forum. I shall tag it as the rooty rumpus room.

Well willy, I wouldn't be so sure you're talking to yourself, thought I know what you mean. Your words are much of what makes the forum valuable.