KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

wilbro99 wrote:

Hi RJ, thanks for your contribution.

My scutellaria lateriflora is in bloom; beautiful flower, it is.

My echinacea, yellow, white, and purple, are perhaps a month from bloom.

with love to your way
RJ

Roots wrote:

wilbro99 wrote:

I guess this is dessert.

The either/or reached is that the problem is either built in to the evolution of the entity, which means that moving through the problem to the solution is also predetermined, as it the solution itself, or, there is something in the finding of oneself that leads to the wrong relationship with the found in the finding, which means that each of us must solve, or not, the finding.

If the former, the either, there is one problem and one solution, and unless the finder has found that one solution, all other solutions are ersatz, or pseudo-solutions.

If the latter, the or, then there is as many problems as there are finders, and each of us must solve our own problem, which, by its personal nature, has as many solutions as there are solvers. That does not say that there is not some general principles in this in-common problem, and that it is those general principles that can be communicated amongst us.

If you are an *either*, you will not be able to communicate in this matter with an *or*, other than to say the difference is a dead horse. If you are an *or*, communication with another *or* could be very dicey, requiring much tossing back and forth of the individual solutions in an attempt to find general principles of the solution come upon.

Are you an *either* or an *or*? Which do you find yourself in? Is there someone out there that is both, or neither? Hey, step up folks and claim your seat on this bus that is the forum. Or not.

It is neither one nor the other but, as it has to be in a constant renewal of the all, a combination of all factors.

I'll take a high-five at this point if that suits you Vibro ol' thing. I hope we might have provided some entertainment.

Enjoy those tomatoes when they get ready.

Reflecting later yesterday on this culmination it seems to me that unless the findings of our investigation are enunciated the point of them may be lost.

We have, whether we realised it or not, managed finally to nail down the absolute and irreconcilable difference between us willy, and it is pronounced in the conclusions here: in your 'either/or' and my inclusiveness. The situation clearly demonstrates that you are equally as determined to divide the indivisible as I am determined to maintain its true inclusiveness.

The difference stems from, and arises in, our diverse thought constructs; your brain movements arise from an inherent presupposition of division, informed by the fragmentation which that organ of yours is utterly convinced it acurately perceives; and mine doesn't do that. Don't ask me why but it doesn't.

Inevitably this erroneous thought process causes a problem, which problem consists in the constant emplacing of a (totally fictitious) transcendent, whether it be in the 'fence' for us to fall either side of, the 'black box of possibilities', or an 'either/or' division one of which must of course be considered 'right'.

I have explained before willy that the 'I' works with the entire capability of the individual's intellect, plus, in the circumstance of divided thinking, it owns the heart. This means of course that one is utterly at its mercy - defenceless against it. What we are able to observe in this particular circumstance is that because you hate to suppose that you (always) hold a transcendent (despite that you always do) your 'I' disguises it, making it this that and the other, and even, as I have observed often, blames its introduction on another (i.e. me!). I did not intro the fence; I did not invent the black box (in fact I tore it to bits, a fact you had no answer for [silence being one of the three possible responses of the 'I' when trapped]); and I did not divide in the conclusion.

It has taken me the best part of a year to eventually convince you that I hold with no transcendent, and since that is a fact, why should I ever have introduced one? And yet the notion has been introduced in our discussions in perpetuity, always on the pretext that I (Roots) hold with such.

I know you will not be able to hear what is being said here willy, you will not be able to hear it because if you heard it you would have to move from the place in which you mentally find yourself, this would require somewhere to go, and you have nowhere to go. That is not a gloat, I wish it were not true, but it is so.

Last edited by Roots (2012-04-22 07:25:25)

Roots wrote:

Reflecting later yesterday on this culmination it seems to me that unless the findings of our investigation are enunciated the point of them may be lost. …

Yes, I do think that you and I should publish this, The Dead-Horse Chronicles. My contention has always been that there is one realization that may be realized in two incommensurate ways, and your contention has always been that there is a real realization as opposed to a pseudo realization.

Whereas you say that there is a true and a false, I say that the difference that allows for such a judgment must first be posited before the true may be chosen, in whatever form it is chosen.

As an aside, there is more than one true abroad in this forum, and also many that recognize a false when they see it; but since it is not my intent to stir the waters, as it were, I shall keep the names secret. [place hint of a smile here]

The irony here is that before a true may be posited, the true/false form must be placed on the table so that the true may fill it completely, leaving thus no room for the false part of the form to be filled.

In effect, the imagined difference between the true and the false is divided again when the true is made real, or realized, and the false left as the imagined.

Now, this may be *the* realization, and a fact that self-consciousness must come to grips with, which is *either-speak*, or it may be that the form itself is wholly created out of whole cloth, which is *or-speak*.

See, I can set up the form to fit either the *either* or the *or*. The first question I found to do this was this question:

Is there a beyond, or does the inability to imagine nothing translate into an undifferentiated presence?

Ok, the next bit of nonsense will continue my ongoing response to your last post (#103).

Roots wrote:

The difference stems from, and arises in, our diverse thought constructs; your brain movements arise from an inherent presupposition of division, informed by the fragmentation which that organ of yours is utterly convinced it acurately perceives; and mine doesn't do that. Don't ask me why but it doesn't.

So, we are to look here at the difference between the correct choice and the incorrect choice.

Fair enough, the difference was just cast in *either-speak*, and I shall translate that difference into *or-speak*.

So, if there is to be an incorrect choice, that choice must be chosen, else I myself might dealt the incorrect choice through some sort of predestination.

The error then is the incorrect choice is determined by what one thinks, and if one thinks the wrong thought here, one makes the incorrect choice.

I get that. Your follow up question of why you do not think the wrong thought whilst I do has a simple answer; that is the way you think it is.

That was interesting.

Hi RJ, I have not forgotten you, so rest easy...

Roots wrote:

It has taken me the best part of a year to eventually convince you that I hold with no transcendent, and since that is a fact, why should I ever have introduced one? And yet the notion has been introduced in our discussions in perpetuity, always on the pretext that I (Roots) hold with such.

I know you will not be able to hear what is being said here willy, you will not be able to hear it because if you heard it you would have to move from the place in which you mentally find yourself, this would require somewhere to go, and you have nowhere to go. That is not a gloat, I wish it were not true, but it is so.
Last edited by Roots (Today 07:25:25)

Ok, Roots, I leave you with the last swipe at the dead horse. Thanks for the walk. May you find that which you seek.

Roots, the pleasure was mine.

I took your swipe for what it was, only as a signal that our walk had ended.

Until whenever, then...

Hello T, you have posted a very interesting collection of words; its effect upon me was to set off a shower of ideas, each begging for the release that allows me to enjoy their content, like chewing on chocolate covered caramel candies (I am not into gummy bears).

An idea is what the artist gets, which in turn is turned into the form that is the realization of that idea. Some of us are good with their hands, from painting to sculpting to weaving to mime and to whatever form that realizing leads. I am not, nor was I ever one of those; I suffered from the condition of being all thumbs.

When I was a kid, way back in the '30's of last century, there was a bunch of us who made those balsa wood airplanes and flew them off the viaduct to watch them soar. There was always one of those planes that was chosen to be the one that went down in flames: I won, hands down, as it were, each time.

It turned out that I had a mental hand, connected to a mind's eye that saw the forms that mental hand was creating, and a gift of language that allowed me to express those forms I saw. So, when the form I came across was that of a seeker seeking to escape its present binding, the sense of being smothered by life, the wonker was born.

The pattern, thus exposed, allowed me to locate myself in that pattern, and thus map out the process of that seeker complex. I know how that identity whose being is confined to the pattern operates. I know how to leap that gap between the seeker to the finder, and how the loser then comes into play, and how the final finding then becomes the goal that keeps the wheel turning.

And what I am doing here is describing an idea in terms of a process, an abstract form that allows the mind's eye to see what is going on in that place where it is not the face in the mirror that changes, but the face of another identity that changes.

The release of the above idea to words paints a wordy picture of my truth, a truth, that once painted, falls apart as simply an idea realized. The canvas is made of whole cloth, and once painted, the canvas dissolves, leaving only sparks that spark only for so long as sparks spark.

If those sparks are identified as the truth, those sparks matter and a new identity is born.

I would gladly engage you in the exposition of ideas; it would give me great pleasure, as has this very painting just done.

Of course, all of the above is nothing more than someone playing with words.

Yes, whole cloth is good for expression, it is the fabric that spins a good yarn. Anyone seen Rumple lately?

See how it dissolves into the chuckle…

[place chuckle here]

There you go T, respond as you see fit, or not; your call.

Hi T, the Roots just referred you to a post in another thread for his answer to your question of what is going on verbally in the matter between us.

Since he has seen fit to give his side of that verbal joust, let me give my side of that same joust.

The Roots and I have two different views of how we fit into the world we find ourselves in.

He finds his finding the right view, which makes my finding the wrong view.

I find two different findings, and instead of judging which is right, if either, I am interested in the difference between those two incommensurate findings.

My view, in his view, is seen as taking the truth away from his view, for the truth cannot be seen in two incommensurate ways; in his view, both cannot be right, for it is his view that is right.

From my view, I see him involved in the difference between us as a matter of black and white, and I view that difference as a difference to be investigated.

The reason I see that difference as a difference worthy of being investigated is because the both of us describe the problem to be solved, as cast in living terms, more or less the same.

My question is then one of asking what there is about this problem of living that allows its solution to be described in as many ways as there are solvers, and why do some of those descriptions find an incommensurate gap between them.

That last question, the one of addressing the view that holds an absolute difference such that allows for the judgment of right and wrong, good and evil, and the reification of a one who represents the good/truth side of that absolute difference, is, in my view, part of the problem.

Of course, the other side of that coin is that there a One that is the Truth, which renders my meta-analysis purely intellectual bullshit.

So, which side of that fence does your view reside on? Remember, both sides are views that may be held, views that when not being remembered, may or may not cause problems.

Have a good day T; may you find what you seek.

willy asks T: "So, which side of that fence does your view reside on?"

T creates another fence: "There are no fences, Wilbro"

[edit removed snark]

May you find that for which you seek...

Last edited by wilbro99 (2012-04-28 18:31:11)

but tree....how boring this forum would be without gates to discuss and fragments to analyze.

it would be like a party without the party-ing, or a movie without drama.

wilbro99 wrote:

willy asks T: "So, which side of that fence does your view reside on?"

T creates another fence: "There are no fences, Wilbro"

[edit removed snark]

May you find that for which you seek...

No willy. What it seems you can never see is that you are the creator of fences/transcendents (i.e. rights and wrongs). Because you do not wish to have a transcendent within your world-view, and because your intellect is so sharp, and because your 'I' has full utility of that intellect plus your heart, the fact of your creation is hidden from yourself (by yourself). Hard to get your head around that one altogether isn't it? But that is what's going on. Try the metaphoric 'wall' again and try to see what lies behind it: you will find that what lies behind it is the same that separates you (and each of us; always allowing one or two) from K, Christ, etc.. There is only reality and illusion, and until we see that there is a 'wall' and that what lies behind that wall is what is creating the illusion (i.e. our own activity hidden from our very selves) we cannot find the reality (nirvana etc.).

Last edited by Roots (2012-04-29 08:58:43)