KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

tree wrote:

joe, do you have a correct grasp of yourself as yourself?

joe wrote:

have you not paid attention, tree?  If you have you already know this.

do you mind answering the question directly for the benefit of those who might not have grasped it?

thanks

Thanks. We stick to it. The target is man's confusion and not all the man himself.

snguyen wrote:

joe wrote:

ok, in talking about introducing time what is being said is that anytime one has a posit of oneself time is then already there.  So when you say it does not come back at any point (which point extends into the unknown future), you are talking about it coming back for you, Si, and so this posit is in place, right?  Do you see this?  Clearly for much of the world it is still happening so you must then be speaking of oneself.  This posit of oneself I would call an incorrect grasp of oneself as oneself, to use Willy's terminology, if it extends into time in this way.  You may mean it differently but this is how it translates to me.

It is better now.

Here, you have to talk from a certain understanding. I don’t treat time as a broad entity which makes it abstract. Time has no meaning if it has no products as much as consciousness is a vague term if it has no content. To empty the content of consciousness, or to empty the product of time, is to be free of both. Then you can talk about them clearly and not confused as before when you were investigating. The problem here is that we are not absolutely free of time. I say that is fine and let’s talk from within it, which is to look at ourselves, the facts in us, and move further in all directions of the hidden psyche. Right now, I don’t see any possibility of ending time if we don’t end factually fear, hurt, aggression, divisions… and they are all one root.

And again I say that to talk about the ending of them comes from an incorrect grasp of the situation, of oneself.  I am trying to see if what you are saying fits into my understanding and it keeps looking like you are projecting a future self.  K took a very absolute stance in his speech and this has often transferred to those who have studied his work.  I think it was an error (and a denial) on K's part and to me what you are saying appears the same.

right

you talk to yourself without realizing it...

wilbro99 wrote:

beans, I have a reading on what is going on between joe and Si. I can read my understanding into what they are both saying. If that reading is correct, I see what could be the difficulty, and I would say that it is context.

When I wrote my process 101, I had Si's context in mind; process, process, and process. Process is the means by which the understanding was delivered. The language of Si reflects his understanding.

When joe and I first began to sort out our respective views of this matter, I had the language to translate into joe's context, and he and I came to an understanding that seems to have held.

Si, whether he knows it or not, speaks the language of wonk, but he does not speak the language joe speaks. The difficulty is context. I see them both saying the same thing so differently that the mesh is difficult.

Read through with my hypothesis in mind and tell me what you see.

Willy, I think the differences between Joe's and Si's take are basically the same as seen in prior discussions between the two. There are a few specific angles that differ all relating to a main theme.

When you say context in regards to this discussion, do you mean specifically "thought"?

mmmm....nah

(cue the plate of beans)

beans wrote:

Willy, I think the differences between Joe's and Si's take are basically the same as seen in prior discussions between the two. There are a few specific angles that differ all relating to a main theme.

When you say context in regards to this discussion, do you mean specifically "thought"?

Ok, angles and a main theme. How many angles can dance on the main theme?

The main theme, as I take it, is a change in perspective that is not just a movement to a different angle, but a change that reflects back into the one whose perspective it is.

It is my view of that change, my shtick, if you will, that it must, by definition, be contextual to one whose reflected perspective has been changed, and thus this change cannot but be personal.

In practical terms, the description of that change depends upon the parameters present what that change took place which means that in any attempt to communicate across that gap requires that the change itself must be isolated if a mutual understanding is to cross that gap.

I think of that attempt as one of gossiping across a fence represented by the same disjunction as the change itself reveals.

Heavens, that is wonky, but I know of no other way to say it.

stop reaching for the pic in your head and indeed it shall be then.

beans wrote:

The understanding of some people is further altered after this change of perspective. Why is it do you think that the understanding isn’t further altered in others, even though they seem to be exposed to the right context/stimuli/whatever? And the periods of changed perspective don’t seem to be cumulative for some. I guess they're two separate ticket items. Does this make any sense?
Last edited by beans (Today 00:15:30)

Hoo boy, what a study that would be; is it the subject or is it the subject? The only sense I can make of that question is that the subject that has itself as a subject is subject to all the flaws that goes with learning on the job.

I suspect that this forum should be proof that the subject of a subject that has itself as a subject can only be, as someone here said, don't remember who, autobiographical, and that says process to me. That says to me that it should be to the process that we turn for mutual understanding.

Well, I tend to ramble on when I get on a wonky roll. I call it having fit, where things suddenly fit.

At any rate, the questions are of the order of comparing results, like what did you learn and what were the conditions of that revelation? What can we find in common as we communicate across the gap? The only answer I know is the process; not what we have found, but the process of finding.

basta ja!

Stumps, what if it were not about the source, but the reaching?