KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Ken wrote:

@ But thought acts on its own for whatever reason. It is either operating or it isn't. I don't think denial has anything to do with it. That's like saying the stomach should deny its own production of digestive juices.

The stomach acts on its own, ok. But for thought, if there is no recording of experience, no memory, thought is not. Thought demands pleasure. When the mind/brain/being is pleasant without a cause, it does not want thought.

Last edited by Ken (2012-08-02 18:37:29)

Ken wrote:

Pablo Sitauskis wrote:

Can the brain, in flashes of insight, get glimpses of something truly new and creative, something that is not simply a product of memory/conditioning?

It's funny how we speak about the brain having flashes of insight. After all, the brain is simply another biological organ. We never speak about the liver or kidney having flashes of insights.

My wording was imprecise. I didn't mean that the brain *has* these flashes, rather that when the flashes occur does the brain (thought) pick up a kind of afterimage from them?

Pablo Sitauskis wrote:

Roots wrote:

What would you say, Pablo, to a claim that the physicists haven't found (any) matter yet?

As in no particle that is irreducible and has true independent existence?

No. That they haven't found a[ny] particle[s]. What they have found (and continue to find in seemingly ever increasing degrees of refinement) is/are energy centres, period. They are centres of heat/movement, which heat and movement is/are indivisible (and hence undifferentiable one from the other in this particular application). Thus they say that matter is (i.e. consists in [and presumably of]) 'heat/movement'. As to what 'gets warm' or 'moves' they have not the first idea.

Some (possibly) interesting definitions relating thereto:

Matter: (physics) Any entity displaying gravitation and inertia when at rest as well as when in motion.

Entity: The fact of existence; being. Something that exists independently, not relative to other things. A particular and discreet unit.

Heat: A form of energy associated with the motion of atoms and molecules. It is energy transferred as a result of a temperature difference, and transmitted through solids and fluid media by conduction, through fluid media by convection, and through empty space by radiation.

Motion: The action or process of change of position.

Movement: The act or an instance of moving; a change of position.

Gravitation: The natural phenomenon of attraction between massive bodies. The influence of such attraction.

Inertia: The tendency of a body to resist attraction. The tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest or of a body in motion to stay in motion in a straight line unless disturbed by an external force. Resistance or disinclination to motion, action or change.

Do you notice an inclination to circularity Pablo? Or is my imagination playing tricks?

I have seen and watched on the forum quite high intellects tossed about on the waves of their egoes like corks; their posted offerings often nothing short of ridiculous. It seems to me that the work even of the top physicists is similarly effected, in quite considerable constancy.

K said we are totally irrational; I'm in agreement.

Last edited by Roots (2012-08-03 06:42:11)

wouldn't it be nice if the pay-off for needing to use such convoluted language to approach the divine sans sappiness would be getting at least a little closer to the object of said same interminable dancing around the point...

For those who don't already grok grok:

"Grok means to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observed—to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group experience. It means almost everything that we mean by religion, philosophy, and science—and it means as little to us (because of our Earthling assumptions) as color means to a blind man." - Stranger in a Strange Land, Robert Heinlein

but see, here is the thing, RJ...a child can not understand it, nor should they.

RJ wrote:

if a child can't comprehend it then what chance does an adult have?

Is that your litmus test of "credibility," that a child should be able to comprehend it?

RJ, it's hard to "converse" with you given our time difference. I'm starting to get very sleeeeeeeeeeeeeepy now, and you're probably into your second cup of coffee.

I think that a child of 4+ (rough guess) could quite easily understand that a wave is both a wave (explicate order) and a part of the ocean (implicate order). I speak from lack of experience; I doubt that any of my cats at age 4+ could have understood this, but they sure as heck would be fascinated with the wave/ocean.

Looking forward to your response, but that's it for me tonight. :-)

Pablo Sitauskis wrote:

Roots, do you know David Bohm's implicate/explicate order writings? He theorizes that there is an implicate (hidden) order (The Flux), and an explicate (visible) order consisting of temporary manifestations unfolding from the implicate order. Like waves and eddies unfolding from an ocean. Thus an elementary particle is an ephemeral semi-independent entity that unfolds from and later enfolds back into The Flux (implicate order).

I bought the book, began it, quickly realised he had missed K (in whom I have supreme confidence) and lost interest. Actually, I was aware that he (Bohm) had failed to 'catch' (as it were) K within the 'Ending of Time' dialogues previously but was wondering if he'd managed subsequently to gain anything more; he hadn't. But please don't get me wrong, Bohm's ratiocinatory capacity is phenomenal and I have the very greatest admiration for his honesty and extraordinary (and then some!) intellectual capacity/capability. I have for a long time, as a consequence, found the 'Ending of Time' dialogues extremely valuable in as much as Bohm's attributes served to draw K out in a manner and to a fullness (in terms of explication) I haven't come across in any other of his communications and/or writings.

Having said that, whilst I can sail to some extent with your above summary of that part of Bohm's work, I feel it doesn't answer the question I raised, viz. 'is there is a physical reality to the particles which the physicists like to consider to constitute matter?': in other words, have they found any matter yet? I suggested that they have not.

What the physicists (effectively) do is they run their hands down their own physical bodies and are instantly assured by their 'I' that they exist in solid form. This their minds hold in the the shape of a rock-solid, immoveable presupposition which works to distort the actual findings of their experimentation and investigation. That they exist in 'solid' form is (for them) a given which no amount of evidence to the contrary will shift on account their 'I' (the creator and maintainer of their 'total' irrationality) will not let it.

Whether or not we view therefore Bohm's elementary particle as an ephemeral and semi-independent entity (and regardless of whether it may or may not unfold from and later enfold back into the [implicate] flux) seems to me strictly an irrelevance: the fact seems to be that there is no 'matter' of the kind the scientists are trapped, irrationaly, into (pre)supposing.

Last edited by Roots (2012-08-04 08:01:40)

RJ wrote:

Most children would prefer to negotiate reality than pursue its fascimile

Yes. And now I understand more what (I think) you're talking about: experience reality, don't analyze/theorize it. Yes?

Roots wrote:

K (in whom I have supreme confidence)

ah, faith!
the truest trickster of the tremulously troubled