KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Pablo Sitauskis wrote:

beans wrote:

I guess that depends on what you mean by meaning.

Thanks for the response, Beans.

Yeah, I guess I wasn't very clear about what flavor of "meaning" I was using.

Meaning in the sense of purpose, worth, value, gravitas. Looked at by Person A, this painting over here has colors, shapes, texture, etc., but little to no meaning; it doesn't matter, has no life-changing weight. Looked at by Person B, the painting has deep meaning; it changes his way of looking at the world, it has weight, it matters.

Here's what comes to mind, Pablo. At one time, a few of CS Lewis's writings were very meaningful to me because I didn't fully understand for myself the topics, such as "The Problem of Pain." I happened upon  that book recently and realized that I have known for some time that pain isn't actually a problem (as in a mystery to be solved - ie why does god allow pain?). So the book no longer has any meaning for me.

So obviously, the things we hold as having meaning change and are relevant only to the person as it is at a given time. On the other hand, the core of K's teaching, choiceless awareness etc, is probably meaningful to different degrees to forum members..

Meaning only is meaningful in relationship, isn't it? It really doesn't stand alone in some kind of inherent meaning

LMP wrote:

Pablo Sitauskis wrote:

hermann wrote:

Ask the cat.

All I get back is this wide-eyed stare.

My cats eyes seem to say: ok, we are here now.

A few days ago I stopped my car at a neighbor's backyard, got out, and played fetch with this very sweet Golden Retriever I visit from time to time. After the usual (and very fun) throw, fetch, yank, throw, fetch, yank ... I knelt next to him (her?) and petted him very gently. His big beautiful dog eyes stared up at me, clear, open, no fear, and there was a moment of pure connection. A sacred moment.

Pablo Sitauskis wrote:

joe wrote:

Pablo Sitauskis wrote:

If earth were human-less, would "meaning" ... have no meaning?

well, earth isn't human-less so we got what we got...

Not a fan of thought experiments?

I am a tough sell for speculation, yeah...I wasn't trying to knock what you were asking or anything, it was just the response that came out.

While you are asking though, I will usher another speculative question.  What do you see to be gained by wondering about 'what is not' when 'what is' has plenty to see.  If you want to talk about meaning I am all for it but searching for meaning might not be the best approach...;-)

joe wrote:

I am a tough sell for speculation, yeah...I wasn't trying to knock what you were asking or anything, it was just the response that came out.

No offence taken! Why the aversion to speculating, if I may ask? Do you think it serves to deepen the belief in the story at the expense of the real?

While you are asking though, I will usher another speculative question.  What do you see to be gained by wondering about 'what is not' when 'what is' has plenty to see.

"What is" is generally not so wonder-inspiring for me, because: it IS, and I know it. My sense of wonder tends to come from contemplating "what might be" which, by definition, I do not know.

So I guess you could say I'm drawn to what I don't know, don't fathom, can't fathom.

Pablo Sitauskis wrote:

This is perhaps a bit closer to what I'm trying to get at:

Is there anything that truly matters? A fundamental, incontrovertible reason to do this rather than that? Or is "what is" (the totality) utterly attribute-less, value-less, beyond any rightness/wrongness?

but see, this is an answer you can ascertain in your daily living, isn't it so?  Hit your thumb with a hammer and you will know that goes on the not to do list.  Listen when you are impatient and the answer will be right before you.

Pablo Sitauskis wrote:

Sweet. Do you ever feel it limits the fullness of your experience as a human being (with our crazily wonderfully imaginative brain)?

Do I feel that not following speculations wanderings limits my experience, is that your question?  Check it out pablo, if I do (feel that) I have missed the fact that I am following a speculation once again.  Do you see that?

I use imagination constantly in my business, it is a necessity.  But speculation and imagination are not really the same distinction, at least in the meaning I am giving them right now.

Pablo Sitauskis wrote:

joe wrote:

Pablo Sitauskis wrote:

Sweet. Do you ever feel it limits the fullness of your experience as a human being (with our crazily wonderfully imaginative brain)?

Do I feel that not following speculations wanderings limits my experience, is that your question?  Check it out pablo, if I do (feel that) I have missed the fact that I am following a speculation once again.  Do you see that?

No.

Ok...what I am trying to say is that in order to feel that, I must have an imagined identity to feel it.  Follow this, I would have to first know 'who I thought I was' and then also know 'who I thought I would be' without the limit you are pointing to.  Trouble is, that type of identity is transparent and melts upon first glance.  I get lost but not this way.

Last edited by joe (2012-07-23 21:48:12)

If, when taking a walk we come upon an apple tree and you are hungry and I am not, should we both eat the apples?  What of the butterfly flitting about?  Shall noone see its dance?

It is a speculative question, I know.

I use imagination in a practical way every day pablo.  I am only talking about recognizing when imagination forms an identity that attributes meaning endlessly.

yes...thanks for the walk.

Pray tell. I want to know of this place.