KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

RJ, I'll respond to the meatier part of your post. If you want response to the first part, say so, and I will comply.

RJ wrote:

ok, now this
"you said"
As to the point? What is the point of gardening, of working a jigsaw puzzle, of hiking, of doing anything? If the doing is not its own point, then what have we? We have someone working on the future.

now we are into meatier chunks of meatiness

with affection, dear fellow, I think this may be an error.

A rock, just is, planets, photons, piano's, just are. 
Toenails, on the other hand, grow, have you noticed that?

The 'not doing' to which you refer, I have and still do delve deep down that well
I get the attraction, the pause for peace it affords

but something is missing, it is not an idle place, this universe
contented self-reflection seems necessary, up to a point, at least to loosen that knot I was mentioning before, then I am afraid it begins to assume a similar pattern to Root's furtive masturbations pre and post his other forms of ejaculation on the forum. Like someone patting themselves on the back for the feat of arriving where they already were, it's... meh

I suspect this thing called context is in the way here. I went to the bottom of my well, more than once, not by plan, but by process, and each time it spat me back out into my senses. At the bottom of my well is not the timeless, that is the diving board, but the selfless; and I mean by that a time recorded where the self-reference is absolutely absent.

I have no idea of what you are talking about. What I call home is only self-reflected because that reflection is necessary if I am have discourse with the world I find myself in. I could probably wonk out what I mean, but I shan't.

RJ wrote:

This brings me neatly back to the impossible (but not imponderable) question about the origins. If you cannot sense the 'drive', 'purpose' (none of these words are adequate because they all come pre-loaded) of this, evolving, muck, then I suggest you may have attained the impassivity of a nice piece of quartz but have yet to navigate your way through the monkey's mind, why it is what it is.

My response to this is a smile. If what you are talking about is something I must think to hold, then I am lost, for when I stop thinking my truth, it dissolves. If I must hold it to have it, I have not the strength to hold anything more than the thought of a truth.

RJ wrote:

imagine total utter silence, nothing, nothing whatsoever
if you can more than imagine it, be in it, remember it
the burst of life and 'what it wants' (life wants to live, for a start)
and then...?

The only silence I know resides in the timeless, and that as the presence of an absence. I cannot ascertain whether that presence is an absolute other, the void, or some such, or whether it is simply the sense of there being no past, no future, nor the present that was between the two.

If I opt for the latter, I find myself grounded in my senses, which is the practical answer. The other grounding, as the absolute other necessary for 'this' to be, is simply not in my genes. I think stumpy, aka tree, takes it the other way.

Again, I am not sure what you are suggesting. When I try to imagine nothing, I find myself trying to imagine nothing. I have no idea of what life wants other than to turn and see what I want. Right now I want to get some shut-eye in.

If I have not answered your questions, ask again in a different form, and I may eventually cotton on to what you are saying.

~*~

RJ, with a cup of hot coffee by my side, I shall tackle the first part of your post.

RJ wrote:

Wil said "What went before? If you are talking about God and creation, I do not know how to even begin contemplating such a question"

so try, stretch your brain, notice the instant 'recoil', then stretch it again regardless

RJ, I can only answer what I find when I ask myself the question. When I read the question, either an answer arises or it does not. If an answer does not arise, I ask myself, directly, the question.

I ask it again, now, and I still find no answer rising to meet it. The question itself, as I reflect upon it, asks me what I think comes before the beginning. And off I go into thinking of beginnings so that I can think of a before the beginning.

I imagined, from the slant of your post, that you were asking about first causes, and I really do not have a form that I can fit such an answer into.

And what recoil? For that to happen, I must already have a form in mind to react to. If I have no form in mind, I must create one to recoil from. If I keep the form, and that form has a Causer in it, and that Causer is under the bed, or in the closet, or watching my every move to judge me for heaven, then I can imagine a recoil.

Well, maybe you are trying to get me to imagine nothing and recoil from that thought. That's interesting. Do I imagine this coffee cup I see close at hand? Can I imagine it being empty? So what has to be empty for there to be nothing? It can't have a container, for that is something. The logical conclusion is that the faculty of imagination does not work on empty.

So, what is going on? The form the question requires is the cause and effect form. If I turn existence into an effect, it requires a cause. Since I do not possess the absolute form of that form, I cannot fill it.

RJ wrote:

I think you, Wilbro, have loosened up your temporal knot enough to do it as well as anyone but if you think you have got far enough off your leash already and may know no new tricks then you truly are an old dog...

Now you are sounding like Roots. No, truly, I hear the Roots telling me that I am stuck in the pseudo-I. It sounds like you are dangling a carrot on the end of the stick, and inviting me to find a missing piece that I must find.

Obviously, your Weltanschauung contains a form mine does not, and you are telling me that I am missing something. Hey, that may be, but I do not feel its absence, so I cannot seek its presence. 

So, what is my form? My first thought is that my ground is the world as sensed. My reality is the world I *find myself looking about in*, where that finding is *my finding*.

The words describe a relation of a self to self relation to a world that relation relates to; anything beyond that is imagined. I can imagine the car in the garage and bring it into *my world*, but until I do so, it is imagined.

I am reminded here is of how, at a certain age, out of sight is gone. But I have acquired the tool of imagination, and I can get into my car and drive to the nursery to look for a plant to fit a place in the backyard I have in mind for it.

RJ wrote:

re the 'keeping the personal out of it' well yes, obviously, that is rather the standard here. My observation is that it leads to more acrimony and misunderstanding than might be the case if two or more 'people' rather than two or more 'minds' were attempting to engage each other in conversation. Isn't there some adage about this? Can't think of it, something about the enemies being faceless, until they become friends...

My difficulty here, and it is only my difficulty, is that there is the personal and there is the personal. If, in a generic sense, *my world* has a *me* in it, that identity to whom things happen, the self to world relation if fraught with the struggle to find my place in it, and defend that place to the death.

One of those personals finds itself in the world it imagines should be, where it knows what is around the corner, and everything is in its proper place. If anything is out of place, then the imperative is to set it straight.

- - -- --- -----

As an afterthought here, RJ, that movement I just described is the same movement as found in the place where memory also records the absence of the self-reflection entirely; it is the movement of care, in which the ordering is for the Good.

It is as if a *my world* with a *me* in it is trying to play Good. The order is not thy will be done, but *my order*.

That has the ring of the tree about it; desire is the breath of god, or something like that…

Anyway, enough already! The coffee is cold!

wilbro99 wrote:

RJ, with a cup of hot coffee by my side, I shall tackle the first part of your post.

RJ wrote:

Wil said "What went before? If you are talking about God and creation, I do not know how to even begin contemplating such a question"

so try, stretch your brain, notice the instant 'recoil', then stretch it again regardless

RJ, I can only answer what I find when I ask myself the question. When I read the question, either an answer arises or it does not. If an answer does not arise, I ask myself, directly, the question.

I ask it again, now, and I still find no answer rising to meet it. The question itself, as I reflect upon it, asks me what I think comes before the beginning. And off I go into thinking of beginnings so that I can think of a before the beginning.

I imagined, from the slant of your post, that you were asking about first causes, and I really do not have a form that I can fit such an answer into.

And what recoil? For that to happen, I must already have a form in mind to react to. If I have no form in mind, I must create one to recoil from. If I keep the form, and that form has a Causer in it, and that Causer is under the bed, or in the closet, or watching my every move to judge me for heaven, then I can imagine a recoil.

Well, maybe you are trying to get me to imagine nothing and recoil from that thought. That's interesting. Do I imagine this coffee cup I see close at hand? Can I imagine it being empty? So what has to be empty for there to be nothing? It can't have a container, for that is something. The logical conclusion is that the faculty of imagination does not work on empty.

So, what is going on? The form the question requires is the cause and effect form. If I turn existence into an effect, it requires a cause. Since I do not possess the absolute form of that form, I cannot fill it.

RJ wrote:

I think you, Wilbro, have loosened up your temporal knot enough to do it as well as anyone but if you think you have got far enough off your leash already and may know no new tricks then you truly are an old dog...

Now you are sounding like Roots. No, truly, I hear the Roots telling me that I am stuck in the pseudo-I. It sounds like you are dangling a carrot on the end of the stick, and inviting me to find a missing piece that I must find.

Obviously, your Weltanschauung contains a form mine does not, and you are telling me that I am missing something. Hey, that may be, but I do not feel its absence, so I cannot seek its presence. 

So, what is my form? My first thought is that my ground is the world as sensed. My reality is the world I *find myself looking about in*, where that finding is *my finding*.

The words describe a relation of a self to self relation to a world that relation relates to; anything beyond that is imagined. I can imagine the car in the garage and bring it into *my world*, but until I do so, it is imagined.

I am reminded here is of how, at a certain age, out of sight is gone. But I have acquired the tool of imagination, and I can get into my car and drive to the nursery to look for a plant to fit a place in the backyard I have in mind for it.

RJ wrote:

re the 'keeping the personal out of it' well yes, obviously, that is rather the standard here. My observation is that it leads to more acrimony and misunderstanding than might be the case if two or more 'people' rather than two or more 'minds' were attempting to engage each other in conversation. Isn't there some adage about this? Can't think of it, something about the enemies being faceless, until they become friends...

My difficulty here, and it is only my difficulty, is that there is the personal and there is the personal. If, in a generic sense, *my world* has a *me* in it, that identity to whom things happen, the self to world relation if fraught with the struggle to find my place in it, and defend that place to the death.

One of those personals finds itself in the world it imagines should be, where it knows what is around the corner, and everything is in its proper place. If anything is out of place, then the imperative is to set it straight.

- - -- --- -----

As an afterthought here, RJ, that movement I just described is the same movement as found in the place where memory also records the absence of the self-reflection entirely; it is the movement of care, in which the ordering is for the Good.

It is as if a *my world* with a *me* in it is trying to play Good. The order is not thy will be done, but *my order*.

That has the ring of the tree about it; desire is the breath of god, or something like that…

Anyway, enough already! The coffee is cold!

wow! love the stream of consciousness writing style, appreciate the lack of stilton in your cheese, mate.

however I must say you tend towards the defensive pretty quickly there Master Wilbro, I don't blame you at all, in fact I accept full responsbility for writing in a way that bought it out, but I think you entirely missed the point of my question in getting up on the old high horse to have a look at it.

I am not trying to get you to change, or experience something else, or whatever, I just thought that asking you an interesting question or two might get you off the constant groove of 'self reflecting consciouness reflecting self', hence the suggestion to imagine or feel something you can't rationalise or simpy tie up in the same knot. Different string, same knot.

Perhaps it might have been a starting point for a different kind of chat, I think you are as smart as a whip but as stuck as a rut. That's the thing with self-satisfaction, all you get is more of the same thing, there's no room for anyone else in it.

I hear you want to put me in a box with Roots and I guess that might make me a bit easier to thus dismiss but even if its true I can put that heinous slander 'right back at you' because what is so different from his (remarkably frank) admission of excessive self-stimulation to someone doing the same thing with their intellect. There's nothing wrong with either form of masturbation but eventually you're going to dry up, right?

oh, forgot you were in that corner there already, sorry once again. Just because I don't think you are up for any new paths in the woods doesn't mean I can't poke you with a stick now and again, right?

thy will be done Wilyum?
that is, darkly, funny.

Oh the hubris, the sheer, unadulterated, unrepentant, hubris.
Marvellous.

Do you remember some months back me pretending you were really a closet theist over a few posts we shared? Ya gotta love a man with hubris, it's so... optimistical.

wilbro99 wrote:

Hi RJ, I appreciate your trying to save my soul, but I am beyond saving. Are you perchance a man of the cloth?

I recognize the invitation to joust, but my squire took my suit of armor out for pressing and I will have to wait until it is returned. The way you dig at this still reminds me of the Roots; the way you slice and dice another is instructive.

At any rate, perhaps a subject not so fraught with peril will arise and you and I can chat. Until then, be well.

this is repetitious, stop it please,

I was simply looking to see if we could have a conversation that didn't revolve around your describing how you can see things one way and, oh look at that, another way at the same time

it just gets a bit cretinous, like a kid still discovering he has opposable thumbs 40 years after the fact.

now I am getting pissed off,
you won't like me when I'm angry Wilbro,
are you sure you want to go there?

hopefully you have a) more intelligence and b) better things to do.

man of the cloth, fuckn hell, do you listen to anyone apart from your self? why are you here again? No don't answer that. Drop it. Move on.
There are still people here who talk with you, right?

every now and again, there you are
good

Kirsten, that is the pits! Fascinating!

I noticed that the circles with the shadow on top will resolve more readily into a pit. What do you see?

beans, I see a movement now, but just a slight twist.

Fascinating. On the pits thingy, try crossing your eyes slightly...

edit: beans, did you notice that the shadows are ordered around each ring?

Last edited by wilbro99 (2012-02-26 14:28:11)

beans, try this for the pits. Start with the spots whose shadow is on top.

Look at the shadow and see it as a depression, then let that depression seep into the spot.

Hi Kirsten. The first thing I saw when looking at it for the first time were the pits. I counted twelve of them, three in each circle; the inside six in the top two and the outside six in the bottom two.

Those twelve 'bottom' right out at me when I look at it. That change of perspective could account for the perceived movement.