Bohm dialogue

Kinfonet Discussion
42

I’m sure he is far from the only person to want what they want. :innocent:
Or maybe I should say : to feel that what I want is what I need. That good things are good things.

The only way to transcend true and false, good and bad, is to see the source of the process - to see the confused relationship of the self with self.
The only way to transcend good and bad is to see the self.

If “informed naivety” is a relationship between me and what I know, then nothing has changed. If it is an understanding of the relationship, we are freed of method and motive.

43

James and Doug,

I’m gonna bow out of the paths/comfort discussion, it’s going in circles for me.

I’d be open to continuing it in its own thread sometime, it’s an important and nuanced issue.

44

This cul-de-sac is the inevitable destination of the self that inquires into its own limits. From here we either chase our tails or flee.
Fleeing being the sensible option. Discomfort is a signal from myself. If we think that what I want is good, then it would be foolish to ignore the signal.

Going round in circles will not be beneficial for those of us who still have faith in desire.

1 Like
45

What do you mean by faith in desire?

46

As far as I can see, it’s only going in circles because you refuse to be concrete or forthcoming in your reasons for holding the beliefs you vaguely hint at. If a person never goes all the way to the end on any issue, it permits them to maintain an ironising distance, which is toxic to genuine disclosure.

Will another thread on this “important and nuanced topic” (i.e. the critical examination of following paths and the comfort these bring us) provide any further light? Only if the participation is open, transparent, vulnerable, and sincere. I’m sorry that you didn’t feel able to do that here.

47

Sincerity,

  • "Sincerity can never be simple; sincerity is the breeding ground of the will, and will cannot uncover the ways of the self.
    …
  • "The desire to achieve, to gain is the basis of sincerity;
    …
  • "This desire to be one with a chosen object brings the conflict of sincerity, which utterly denies simplicity.
    …
  • “Simplicity and sincerity can never be companions. He, who is identified with something, at whatever level, may be sincere, but he is not simple. The will to be is the very antithesis of simplicity. Simplicity comes into being, with freedom from the acquisitive drive of the desire to achieve. Achievement is identification, and identification is will.”
    K, Commentaries on Living, Series I, Chapter 34, Sincerity

James, your discourses on Buddhism were the most complicated and thoughtful analyses that Charley has ever glanced at, impossible for Charley to understand.

48

Yes, a better word is probably earnestness. Early (generally pre-1970s) Krishnamurti sometimes used the word sincerity in a very particular way, that is, in relationship to belief and faith (as in ‘sincerely held beliefs’). This is not of course the way that the word is used conventionally, where sincere can mean “sound, genuine, pure, true, candid, truthful” (traceable to its latin meaning of “whole, clean, pure, uninjured, unmixed”). For this latter purpose Krishnamurti used the word earnestness. One gets a gist of Krishnamurti’s different usages for these words from the following two excerpts:

Surely, there is a difference between sincerity and earnestness. One can be faithful to an idea; to a hope, to a doctrine, to a particular system; but merely copying, pursuing an idea, or conforming oneself to a particular doctrine - all of which may be called sincerity - will surely not help us to clear up the confusion in ourselves, and so the confusion about us.

So, it seems to me that what is necessary is earnestness - not the earnestness that comes from merely following a particular tendency, a particular path but that earnestness which is essential in the understanding of ourselves. To understand ourselves, there need be no particular system, no particular idea. One is sincere only in regard to a thing, to a particular attitude, to a particular belief, but such sincerity cannot help us; because, we can be sincere and yet be confused, foolish and ignorant. Sincerity is a hindrance when it is mere copying, trying to follow a particular ideal; but earnestness is quite a different thing. To be earnest is essential not in the pursuit of anything, but in the understanding of the process of ourselves (Paris 5th Public Talk 1950)

We think that by following a formula - for peace, for meditation, for discipline, for reaching a particular ideal, and so on - we become very responsible, very earnest, very serious. I very much question such a mentality because I feel that such a person is not really earnest; he is merely copying, following, ridden by authority. A follower, surely, is never an earnest person and it is only to the earnest that life reveals itself, not to the follower of a formula. Life is for the earnest, and the earnest one is not he who merely seeks an escape from conflict and sorrow, from the various problems, accidents and incidents of life. The earnest man has not a ready-made solution with which he approaches life’s problems. The one who is really earnest is he who enquires…. I think earnestness is essential for any man and especially for one who is trying to find out what is true, what is the meaning of this existence (Madras 4th Public Talk 1958)

All I meant with regards to dialogue, is that it requires earnestness, honesty, vulnerability, genuineness, an open candid approach (rather than one of withholding, being evasive, having ironic distance, dissembling, etc).

I’m not sure which of the things I’ve written you are referring to here, but it is certainly true that Buddhism is an incredibly complex, often beautiful, often ungraspable(!) series of religious movements and philosophical developments, that I was fortunate enough to study during my MA (hence the perhaps rather scholarly niceties!). I still find the relationship between Krishnamurti’s teachings and Buddhism a source of fascination - but one mustn’t compare (too much!!) of course :wink:

49

Without irony: Why do you care so much about pursuing the issue of comfort and paths with me? There were several times you might have let it go, I even suggested it. But you kept at it. Why?

50

You said that you were “quite comfortable” with “pathfulness”. Which surprised me.

This is an open forum for dialogue and enquiry, so I assume anyone sharing here is open to exploring their assumptions.

So when I wasn’t sure what you meant by that statement, I asked you to clarify what you meant.

Rather than do this, you seemed to double-down on the importance of comfort - which also surprised me. And every time I asked you to clarify what you meant, you seemed to evade the question, double-down further. Which again genuinely surprised me.

So I assume that there is something that you could say to help clarify your statement, but are not saying. You don’t have to say anything - I am not your psychiatrist. But it doesn’t make sense (to me at least) to half-complete an enquiry for so little reason.

51

You seem quite good at reading between the lines. So you no doubt saw that I was unwilling or unable to respond in a way that would have satisfied you. I requested that we end the conversation. Yet you pushed on quite aggressively at times.

Why such a strong reaction, why not respect my request to ease up? What trigger of yours got pushed?

52

As far as I can tell I asked completely fair, reasonable questions - about what you meant by meta-modernism, about what you meant by integral theory, about what you meant by paths and comfort (all items brought up by you and shared on the forum). Whether or not a person is willing to answer is up to them. The fact that you were not willing to answer such basic questions (even while continuing to reply) naturally became part of the question being asked - but I would rather you had just been simple and frank. You (or anyone else on this thread) are always free not to answer; but not answering is also an answer - no?

53

Meanwhile, would the ultimate desire be the negation of all psychological desire?

54

Fair enough. I’ll keep that in mind for our future interactions.

1 Like
55

Maybe this is as simple as one can describe our mistake:
‘Fata Persona’!

1 Like
56

Its the great rookie mistake of : “what should be”.

Its the classic story of the eminent scholar and theoretician getting rumbled by dumdums on the mean streets. :face_with_monocle: :ghost: :rofl:

57

As with any juicy encounter it provided the opportunity for learning about self and other.

58

What did we learn? Did nobody react defensively or evasively to the questions?

59

I learned (relearned) that we all have our belief systems and will defend them, subtly or overtly.

The interesting question for me is, when a stalement is reached in a conversation, what’s going on and what is the appropriate response?

60

In chess a stalemate is when it is impossible for either player to move (except into check). But if one of the parties suddenly refuses to make a move - for reasons of their own - then that is surely not a stalemate, but only the postponement of a possible future move.

Yet that is where I feel we found ourselves. You, nobody, for reasons of your own, refused to explain your view - a view that you must have known would court controversy on a Krishnamurti forum - and so left it to me to try to tease out of you more specifically what you meant (by ‘comfort’, ‘paths’, etc).

But if one is going to say something ‘controversial’, why not own it and explain it, and thereby make it open to criticism, questioning?

That way it becomes a dialogue, a sharing, in which both parties can begin to explore the concrete terrain (e.g. of having a path; is reading Krishnamurti a path, is choiceless awareness not a path? etc).

61

I don’t see it this way. A stalemate had been reached, I kept saying X, you kept saying Y, neither of us was budging. I walked away (or tried to!) once I was convinced of the impasse. I’ve learned over the years this is a perfectly valid way of handling a conversation that has reached the X! No Y! stage.

Again, I see it differently. I explained myself several times, you just didn’t like the content and/or tone of the explanation. You tend to use lots of words, I tend to use few. You tend to be quite earnest and literal, I tend to be looser and playful. That was part of the impasse, our different styles.

Was I holding back? Sure. I didn’t expect you to take what I said about comfort and paths so seriously. To do a ‘full disclosure’ of my view I would need to trust you in a way I don’t (yet). That may come with time.