KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

joe, he/she/it found a basketful of SK quotes, and is living it up.

Begin with the basic identity as a reflection, let the two of that be seen by another, and that one goes at once between them.

This is the way the present finds its way between what was and what will be.

floss on...

["The categories of consciousness, however, are trichotomous, as language also demonstrates, for when I say, I am conscious of this sensory impression, I am expressing a triad. Consciousness is mind [Aand], and it is remarkable that when one is divided in the world of mind, there are three, never two. Consciousness, therefore, presupposes reflection. If this were not the case, then it would be impossible to explain doubt." (Kierkegaard: Johannes Climacus; Hong, pp. 168-69)]

Last edited by wilbro99 (2012-07-07 19:06:56)

Well, well, we do know the farts of own donkey, and from whatever distance it takes to build a bridge. When you and IO are in the same room, not so to speak, but in that so to speak room, the bridge is built.

OK, to wonk:

RJ wrote:

… the fact that you communicate, in effect to invite bridges rather than show gates, says everything about the 'now what', or the 'so what' that I want to know. …

Ha! That figures since I am here, other than to pester others, looking for connections. The prime connection is the gate that is not a gate. I sort of feel that where each of us finds our respective selves is where we communicate from and if that connection cannot be made, for whatever the reason, it's no go.

It's no secret, I think, that the bridge I am trying to build is between two understandings expressing themselves on that difference.

If that bridge is built, the gossip room is open, and I mean the existential gossip room; "Oh lordy! How did you come to know that? Tell me all about it. I think the same thing happened to me!"

joe wrote:

awareness wrote:

so the trilemma shows intellectually, that certainity is impossible.

ummmm, ok...all set now, or would you like to confuse me some more?  If you are just being an idiot then I understand perfectly.

I do believe that I am somehow related to dostojewski

LMP wrote:

awareness wrote:

joe wrote:

ummmm, ok...all set now, or would you like to confuse me some more?  If you are just being an idiot then I understand perfectly.

I do believe that I am somehow related to dostojewski

"I want to be able to talk to at least one single human being the way I talk to myself"

Dostojevskij "The Idiot" page 544

the uncertainity remains, you never know if it is not meant ironical

LMP wrote:

awareness wrote:

LMP wrote:

"I want to be able to talk to at least one single human being the way I talk to myself"

Dostojevskij "The Idiot" page 544

the uncertainity remains, you never know if it is not meant ironical

You mean if I am being ironical? Im not. I just remembered the quote. If he was, I dont know.

yes, i meant him. as "The Double"

alcohol was previously nr 1 of addiction, in today´s time it is the gambling addiction, especially under the young adolescents

Last edited by awareness (2012-07-08 04:32:46)

wilbro99 wrote:

Hello down under RJ, like right back in down over there as a visceral way of pointing out a location. Let me see if I can locate and occupy your tangential.


<<I understand, what follows is tangential, it could go anywhere or nowhere. …>>

In that great circle of things, each of us has our own tangent, and in so saying creates a bridge between us; and I could turn that around and say that we are all tangents to that common movement, make it sound deep, and have said nothing more than we each have our own tangent, as it were.

The sentence I have just now climbed out of was my way of setting my mind to the notion of tangents, and, hopefully, into what you are about to say.

<<… thought is language, less censored than speech, more associative than writing, it is untuned amd it is unheard until we make a potentially fateful decision to express ourselves out loud or in the world. …>>

I would say that the associative nature of thought is the thread that holds thought together, and that that thread is the noun/verb image necessary to the grammar that is language; thus, when thought is expressed in speech, that noun/verb becomes the speaker. Is that what you are saying?

it's not what I way saying but I don't see why that matters in terms of being free to riff away however much you wish.
I mean that writing is usually purposeful, linear. Speech and letters have an audience even if they are an imaginery one. Conversely the associative nature of thought can jump from cheese to the moon to cows to farmers to hats to feathers to owls to mice and back to cheese again in the time it took to get the cursor in the right place to write. If we spoke or wrote like we thought we would be known to be mad rather than just highly suspected.

wilbro99 wrote:

<<… seclude a child from the ability to learn oral language and they will never learn to think either. …>>

I have no thoughts here.

I have this statement on good authority from rare cases where children have been deprived the human contact necessary to develop language. If they do not learn to speak by a certain age limit then they are unable to develop thought as we would generally recognise it either. They are grim examples in reality but they put the lie to the utopian view of pre-sapiens humanity as being somehow blissfully at one with nature. The beast lies ever close to the surface.

wilbro99 wrote:

<<… Some but not all thoughts are meant to be spoken, and heard. …>>

I cannot grasp the difference you are pointing to here; too many different ways to take it. You will need to unpack that for me.

for example telepathy would be the worst loss of privacy. We should never know anothers thoughts unless he wishes them to be known. How else to get comfortable in the dark!

wilbro99 wrote:

<<… The person who thinks but doesn't speak, or speaks but isn't heard feels isolated and unloved, as they ought to. …>>

Doesn't that depend upon the motive for not speaking and/or speaking? Shit, I speak in a wonky way, few understand what I am saying, and I don't feel isolated and unloved. I mean, doesn't it all depend upon what you want out of it?

Maybe that is what you have just said, and I had to translate it into willy-speak.

If you have a few that understand you then you are rich in friends indeed. Truly, it only takes one. Try going a little while along your way with not even one to hear or understand you. Isolated and unloved is just the beginning, it gets worse.

As far as motives for speaking, too many to help me make the kind of sweeping generalisations that this was intended to convey.

wilbro99 wrote:

<<… It falls to the speaker to make his thoughts clear and audible. Only once he has done both can he start bemoaning the quality of the nearby eyes and ears. >>

Ok, the teacher must be able to present the lesson in as many ways as necessary to get the lesson across, and to do that, the point must be clear to the presenter.

I would add one thing; the necessity of the teacher to occupy the tangent of the listener in order to find the open ear. Of course, I am relying on my experience of introducing the washing that is algebra to those unwashed number counters.

hear?

this last is the essential point in speaking, with anyone. It is a two way process, if you speak and do not listen then... do I need to spell it out?

The following idiotic comment belongs in this thread:

awareness, you say elsewhere that entropy says that the universe is dying. I say that entropy says that if and only if one of the possible meanings of entropy lends to such a conclusion.

The engineer that resides in my grey cells tends to see these matters in an un-reified manner, where the form determines the process, as opposed to something doing something.

Given a number of parts, those parts may be arranged in a given number of ways. This thought is an abstract thought, but if it can be observed that in any given system that these parts arrange themselves in a particular pattern, whether that pattern appears as either static or dynamic, so that what one sees is the nature of those parts filling its form of possibility with probability.

Thus, it does not have to do with the edifice created, but with the nature of the parts that created that edifice. This notion of the nature of the parts is what led to the search for the god-particle. If the basic building block of the universe, if the parts in themselves are mass, then all constructions will have mass.

The basic question that drives all of these theories is simply one of asking what it must look like to act as it does. It does not matter whether it is the universe or a sense of self, the question is the same question, and the only way to answer that sort of question is to observe what it is doing and let the understanding arise from that observing.

As an aside, one could say that this is where the act of intelligence combines with the curiosity-particle.

In the matter of a sense of self, that observing turns out to be a God-particle. Tag it as consciousness, or as perception, or as awareness, or whatever, but remember that whatever tag you attach to it, the question of a doer and a doing remains unanswered.

If that question is answered, entropy gets reified and something is acting out its nature. The admonition here should be; one subject at a time is all thought can rationally entertain.

So, the universe is dying if and only if it is probable that that which was put together is coming apart. Of course, this requires another particle, like the no-particle, or de-mass particle, or the void, or the empty category.

[place chuckle-particle here]

awareness wrote:

… but there is no changing if there is not the remaining with what is, as an actuality.

I can say here that you and I absolutely agree. I think we have tossed that notion back and forth, shaping it and reshaping it in the passing until we found it no longer needing reshaping. I find that process in itself fascinating and I tend to add that to my descriptions of what is going on.

awareness wrote:

… my intent was to underline, that this psychological revolution is based as a physical mutation, a transformation of matter and energy, a balance, a harmony, an order, in which the psychological is based on a change of physis of patterns, emotion inwardly, within the very brain cell, in which the  neuro-physiology is involved.

Yes, and I can swing with all of that, including JK's swing at it. I can translate that into my language and say what I think says the same thing; there is an incorrect grasp of oneself as oneself, and until that act of grasping oneself as oneself is understood, or grasped, that grasp of oneself will not be the grasp of oneself as understood.

Shorter version: know thyself.

As to your version, I think, with you, that what is going on can be grasped as a change in the brain itself, like changing the neural pathways by setting the condition of what JK has tagged as choiceless awareness.

awareness wrote:

… so of course it was only a demonstration of the metaphysic, beginning with aristoteles and his "unmoved mover", nous, as a basis for the thoughts of thomas aquin, st. john of the cross, meister eckhard, the philosopher and the modern science of physic, chemistry (con-science) connected with the new age etc..

And that is what makes this subject so fascinating, and why I just love to dabble in that process, in all meanings of that term *to dabble in*.

I find that I have a *dabble in* set of mind that comes into being when I begin the dabble. That *dabble room* opens on its own from time to time, I guess just to remind me that it is there; but usually, It opens whenever I visit the form and start reading what was posted. It usually closes when I end that visit.

Well, I ramble. Ramble a bit for me, will you? I would like to get a sense of how your mind works when set to ramble. I think we might get into the ways of thinking that way.

there is a tremendeous stream of knowledge including the self-knowledge, a well ordered world of "ice-crystalls". the ending of these "ice-crystalls" is this in which there happens this bath, the "dabblle in " is possible because the water has a warm temperature, in which the ice-crystalls are ending:-)

Last edited by awareness (2012-07-10 12:44:56)

nah, willy, it was meant that the fluid is the timeless in that example and the ice-crystals the temporal. but anyway, we cannot think as quick as the light speed. so i am going now for a week to have a short trip through europe to visit my parents and i wish you some good days. so long.

To dabble in is to doodle with the noodle...