KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

kirsten wrote:

http://dogingtonpost.com/wp-content/upl … 90x300.jpg

I guess kirsten was in a vulgar 'mood' yesterday.

That's what I was saying earlier: when you know you know nothing, it is already a conclusion, so the unknown is not a fact.
  When one's truly in the field of unknown, then nothing is known: the minute one says 'I know', it is over, finished.

  Besides, how do you know you know nothing? Because there's always more to know, like Socrates implied? Or because one realizes they're helpless, and so know nothing?

  In the latter case what happens? Then one's not trying to know anymore, and so remains in the unknown, in the dark if you will. But, if one remains there, that dark soon becomes light. Yet, one's usually too impatient to stay there, and so they jump back to knowledge, which is the real darkness.

We are talking here, and then, in silence, those who haven't done this, can do it: which is doing nothing, remaining in the so-called darkness, which is not quite what it seems to be.

bruce sean wrote:

That's what I was saying earlier: when you know you know nothing, it is already a conclusion, so the unknown is not a fact.
  When one's truly in the field of unknown, then nothing is known: the minute one says 'I know', it is over, finished.

  Besides, how do you know you know nothing? Because there's always more to know, like Socrates implied? Or because one realizes they're helpless, and so know nothing?

  In the latter case what happens? Then one's not trying to know anymore, and so remains in the unknown, in the dark if you will. But, if one remains there, that dark soon becomes light. Yet, one's usually too impatient to stay there, and so they jump back to knowledge, which is the real darkness.

Yes, you keep saying the same thing.  Obviously you think you know better what Socrates is about than the poor chap himself.  So?

You went along with nothing because I had added nothing to the quote.  And even now you're too dense to his meaning - perhaps because you are too full of of your own meaning.  If that is  the case, you're no longer looking.  You're merely dishing out your own concoction again - derived it seems mostly from Tom. 

But let's look at your concoction: why can't one remain in the so-called darkness? Why  add the modifier 'so-called'?  Any description implies a naming.  As long as we keep naming it, we remain obtuse to it.

Are we merely struggling against our own obtuseness?  Perhaps - instead of struggling against it - we could could begin by struggling 'with' it.  So that we don't prematurely block ourselves.

Last edited by hermann (2012-04-17 11:34:49)

hermann wrote:

You went along with nothing because I had added nothing to the quote.  And even now you're too dense to his meaning - perhaps because you are too full of of your own meaning.  If that is  the case, you're no longer looking.  You're merely dishing out your own concoction again - derived it seems mostly from Tom. 

But let's look at your concoction: why can't one remain in the so-called darkness? Why  add the modifier 'so-called'?  Any description implies a naming.  As long as we keep naming it, we remain obtuse to it.

Are we merely struggling against our own obtuseness?  Perhaps - instead of struggling against it - we could could begin by struggling 'with' it.  So that we don't prematurely block ourselves.

One, people do this all the time: say something, then forget it, and then complain they're not understood. Read your 727 to see your take on Socrates.

  Two, I can say the 'so-called' darkness, because for me it is actually light. Don't reduce all perceptions to yours. I used that word, 'darkness', to describe how the average brain sees the unknown. And I added the modifier to suggest it is simply not so. But you must discover all this-until then it will seem darkness. You must discover that darkness is only 'darkness', or a 'so-called darkness'. This is actually a fact.
So why can't the average brain remain there? It is most unnatural to move away. Why can't it stay there for 2 minutes? Two minutes would change the whole thing, irreversibly.

  And three, Tom was actually in both fields-known and unknown-simultaneously, which is impossible(psychologically), except verbally.

  Edit:I see why you said my question derived from Tom's: just now, and for the first time, I read a few post in that thread, when I saw Bob's name as the last poster.
But the answer's no: in fact, it was derived naturally from the discussion up to this point. It is a natural follow-up: one fact leads to another, to another, and so on.

Last edited by bruce sean (2012-04-18 06:04:53)

It seems futile for you, this not remaining in the unknown. Yet the 'problem' remains. And it is up to you to solve it. It is your life, that's why you're here, after all.

   So why don't you? It is so simple.

You should listen to that pious tone of yours, you might find it quite amusing.

me - you - me - you - blah - blah  - blah