KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

awareness wrote:

willbro99, do you remember our discussion, we had once, where we talked about something and nothing, that they cannot occupy space at the same moment? i think it has something to do with. so time-presence and non-time-presence cannot be at the same moment. bruce and i have a similar discussion, if there is a contact between the part and the whole. i think, thats an crucial point.

awareness, just call me willy, it's easier to type. I think my response will get a tad instructive in sound, but I can think of no other way to develop an in-common language between us.

On the discussion you refer to about that pair of disjunctive opposites we tag as something/nothing, I don't recall it specifically, but the subject matter would have been a good one, and I very likely could have said that. And yes, I would say that the crucial point is caught in that discussion.

Here is the way I would wonk that difference now, and work the presence or absence of the temporal into it; and yes, it's a very good distinction to use to facilitate us getting to that *crucial point*.

Disjunctive opposites fit the form of either/or, where the disjunction signifies that it is one of the other, but not both at once. That gives us two forms of either/or; the relative choice, where the chosen is the door behind which there is either a lady or a tiger, or the chosen becomes *that which is*, much like the digital and/or.

If a disjunctive pair, like non-time-presence (I tag that as the presential, signifying presence as you and I are using it) and its disjunctive opposite, time-presence (I tag that the temporal), are to be thought of at once, at the same time, they must be separated and a movement allowed from one *that which is* to the other.

I think this is the movement you and I are talking about, which is the *crucial point* you and I are gossiping about. I have mixed in some of my terms and some of your terms in hopes of you and I finding our Rosetta Stone.

What say you? Change the words as you see fit.

Postum Scriptum: I'll reply to #99 separately...

awareness wrote:

so for example: a house of cards (as analogy)

the moment of collapse in slow motion. this moment is the moment of releasement of energy during the ending of the house of cards.

so now, this moment is endless

so non-time-presence is in the ending of time-presence

awareness? An odd sort of question, if I might, about dynamic you have just created out of the disjunctive pair temporal/presential, as a movement from the bound to the unbound; the unbinding. Your style here reminds me of someone I have already met. Do I know you from before, with a different handle?

That disjunctive pair of the bound and the unbound, with its movement between of binding and unbinding is really the sense of the movement from *what is* to *that which is* isn't it. That is how it feels, that movement, and if there is the energy of a lifetime in that deck of cards, that release is the mother of all releases.

Or, conversely, if I were to bind myself tightly with a Koan, and break it, the world would light up, right? I may have solved the Koan, but I still might not have caught onto the generic form of that binding and unbinding.

Which reminds me; the Tao, as I read it, is written in that generic form.

Ah, oh, my page turning was to get us past message #100 so that we would not have to flip back to the prior page. It had nothing to do with our discussion.

Griz?

Ah, more than likely Ursa Major?

Rock boy? If so, beautifully played!

If not, there has been a new meeting of minds.

If I translate that MIT correctly, I shall be spending the next hour laughing my ass off!

Around the corner indeed!

No percent. Something is off here. However, whomever, a masterfully constructed carrier system!

My hat's off to you, whomever...

Yeah, flying to the moon. You'd need an engineer for that trip, else you be only baying at it!

here is something to wonk about:

night is without day
day is without night

night is the ending of day
day is the ending of night

night is in which the day is ending
day is in which night is ending

night is in which there is the ending of day
day is in which there is the ending of night

Last edited by awareness (2012-06-11 14:14:11)

wilbro99 wrote:

Thanks for the gift, ness -- and I call you ness because of all the ness there are there would be no ness without awareness; I shall open it after the tomatoes and the flowers get their dues in water.

ok, meanwhile i have some adds:


in the moment of day is the ending of the whole night

in every moment of the day is the ending of the every night

can you create a sentence, which transmit that, about which we talked about time - presence and non-time-presence ?

in the whole is the beginning and the ending of the part. non-time-presence is the beginning and the ending of time-presence. timelessness is the beginning and ending of time.

wilbro99 wrote:

awareness, ness, naw, nessy, yes, nessy it is. I can talk by awareness and perhaps, around the corner with nessy.

I posted the following here before, somewhere, but it fits this occasion. Something for you to noodle on in return.

There is a Bound, but there is no Unbound: an octet for the kazoo

1. There is an unbinding.
2. There is a binding and there is an unbinding.
3. When there is a binding, there is a bound.
4. When there is no binding, there is no bound.
5. When there is no bound, there is no unbound.
6. When there is an unbound, there is no unbinding.
7. When there is no unbound, there is no bound.
8. Therefore, there is a bound, but there is no unbound.

ok, its the non-time-presence without opposite

wilbro99 wrote:

Ok, nessy, you have won the right to noodle on this:

What is this unbinding?

awareness as verb?

Well, [nessy,] that statement would have coin in both sides of that verb, wouldn't it? It seems to me that way...

[edit in brackets]

Last edited by wilbro99 (2012-06-11 18:11:23)