How can I be here now if I don’t know where, who, or what I am? I may be nothing but sound accompanied by pictures and movies (or vice-versa) instead of silence. I may be nothing but disorderly content.
How can I be here now if there is no here and there is no now?
How can I assert anything with absolute certainty?
Might there be a big old WTF??! at the source of everything?
How can you not? There is surely only the now.
Of course, but the conditioned brain, though always here now, is creating and sustaining the illusion of an alternate reality.
From our subjective point of view, we feel that there is only my now - whilst paradoxically living from past experience and desperately living for our imagined future.
So while we imagine that our now is real, our non-existant past and future might actually be subjectively more important experientially.
Meanwhile science tells us that yesterday, tomorrow and today are in some sense already over, whilst also happening right now, and at the same time yet to have occurred.
So, best maybe just to be aware that its complicated.
In my humble opinion, if we start our exploration by seeing things as an immovable problem, we won’t be able to discover much.
“Immovable” is your word, your interpretation of what I’ve written.
As for what we’re “able to discover”, what have you discovered about the human condition through awareness of your inward and outward behavior? And how can you be sure if you’ve discovered anything more than improved ability to deceive oneself?
Hello Inquiry. If we’re “able to discover” anything at all together, can I suggest that we are civil and not snap at each other? I think that would be a good start and might lay the ground for some kind of positive communication. Is this acceptable to you?
I see you don’t like the adjective “immovable” to describe the problem you outlined. Can you suggest another, more suitable adjective? The way you described the problem seemed pretty immoveable to me.
You wrote “what have you discovered …”. I found your use of the present perfect tense interesting here to ask about discoveries I have made in the past up to the present moment in time. Perhaps I have indeed discovered things in the past but can we come to the present moment? Is there a possibility that we might discover something new now? K talked a lot about this, but is there really something to it or not?
The desire "to be " is part of becoming.
My question to you was, “what have you discovered…”, implying by yourself - not “together” with anyone else.
can I suggest that we are civil and not snap at each other?
May I suggest that if you don’t like being snapped at, ask for clarification before interpreting what someone has written?
Is there a possibility that we might discover something new now? K talked a lot about this, but is there really something to it or not?
I don’t advocate or encourage discovering things together because if the discovery is not yours, you haven’t discovered anything.
We talk to each other about K’s teaching to compare notes and share thoughts because it may be helpful. But any discovery that is not yours alone could be vicarious, i.e., not your discovery. How are you to know when you truly have discovered something if you haven’t discovered for yourself how self-deceiving you can be?
I think that is an important question. Is it not "being " part of “becoming”?
Unless we answer logically to these vital questions we remain callus and indifferent. .
That is what I said ,I don’t know why some people think that by dissecting a statement they can possibly understand anything in here.
I asked for clarification but you didn’t answer. I’ll ask again - which adjective would you employ to describe the problem you outlined? I used “immovable” but you you didn’t like it.
As far as I understand, K was able to constantly discover things as if for the first time. If he was talking about violence, for example, he’d go into it in depth with the audience on a kind of journey of discovery together. Have I got that wrong?
What have I discovered? Like everyone, I’ve discovered things throughout my life. The problem with conditioning is that it seems to narrow and distort one’s field of vision and probably limits one’s ability to discover the new. Obviously, a conditioned mind can still discover things but the conditioning seems to impose a limitation. How do you and others see this?
Your initial reply was, “In my humble opinion, if we start our exploration by seeing things as an immovable problem, we won’t be able to discover much.”
You didn’t ask for anything until I “snapped” at you.
Obviously, a conditioned mind can still discover things but the conditioning seems to impose a limitation.
Yes, so the only discovery that really matters is discovering how one’s conditioning determines one’s reality, accounts for one’s decisions, and explains one’s behavior.
I hear that our brain is making up all of our experience - all of it. The push back I get on Kinfonet is that K said useful knowledge is Okay (even essential), but that the real problem is psychological knowledge. Which I have tentatively interpreted to mean Knowledge that is confused with Truth (still not clear for me)
Hello Inquiry. I didn’t ask for clarification initially as none was required. Your post, which described the problem of the conditioned mind, was clear enough to me. What I did was comment on your post, giving my opinion. This seemed to annoy you. I don’t know why.
This raises some questions:
- Do we ever act free of our conditioning?
- Are we ever aware of our conditioning in the moment that we act?
How do you see this?
If I explain, you won’t find out for yourself…if you care to.