You are quite correct there. One glances at all the posts, and not one man spoke out when that guy posted something about rape being beneficial… That silence was directly perceived of as a lack of moral, ethical behaviour (direct perception). So, one wondered whether these discussions/dialogues do not facilitate learning themselves for quite a few on this site.
Paul,
The flight of the eagle leaves no shadow, eh? So, a serious (i.e. caring) person leaves no path (trail). A serious person “into K” isn’t on a path, because freedom begins at the beginning. And it is their very seriousness that begins to erase their very path. It’s kind of easy to perceive who is serious and who isn’t. The positive thinker isn’t serious, they have stepped away from K, and uses any platform to develop their ideas and develop their thinking (and knowledge) as a path, as a means to an end. When a positive thinker believes that dialogue is a trail (path), they leave a shadow. And, so they sow their destiny!! So, one can have a direct perception unless [EDIT] they are indeed just a positive thinker.
That is entirely false. K could grasp another person quickly. So, this is but another patently false conclusion. One has only to read some of his exchanges with people who came to see K one-on-one (the Commentaries) to understand that direct perception can indeed “get” another person quite accurately.
I don’t doubt it, but I suspect we are confusing two things here. There is a perception of the outside world and the activities of other people which may be totally accurate or which may be distorted by one’s own prejudices. So can there first be the direct perception of one’s own prejudices? Then the world, with both its vast natural beauty and its vast manmade ugliness, can be looked at without any screen or filter. Any man or woman who says, ‘Yes, I have looked at and ended within myself every trace of prejudice,’ is merely forming about themselves another form of protection. What is important is to see our prejudices as they exist between us right now. Then we are dealing with a living problem to which neither of us have an answer. Our dead answers are our prejudices.
You seem to be stuck on the phrase “direct perception” insofar as knowing oneself. All one needs is to be aware and attentive, and observe oneself. The fact of the matter is that this is seen usually outside of discussions on this site, outside of dialogue - in real time.
Moreover,
This is obviously positive thinking, since this post sees things in terms of opposites. The reason this positive thinking persists is because you are using thought and knowledge about others which everyone does who isn’t even into K. So, again, Inquiry was again very correct when he stated that dialogue appears to be a waste of time for many - but not all of the participants.
So, Charley challenges Paul, are you playing games?
Apparently, I am. You have already told me that I am playing the game of positive thinking, whatever this may mean. So why do you ask me the question at all? You are only putting a question for which you already have an answer prepared. That’s your particular strategy. Are you aware of this?
So do it now also - that is, to be aware and attentive right now of what you are doing. For me, there is no such thing as outside of dialogue. This is as real as it gets - in here right now. One may have been playing games all of one’s life, but that doesn’t matter, because here is an opportunity to break through and shatter that pattern. It won’t ever happen elsewhere because there is no elsewhere. There is no real time separate from right now.
So how seriously are you putting the question about playing games? Because it may demand a lifetime of watching. But if you are satisfied with a quick, final answer, that’s the deadliest game there is.
What anyone needs to “grasp quickly” about another is how best to avoid conflict with the other. Only from there can one find out what more, if anything, one needs to know.
In other words, if you can’t disarm the other, show respect for their brutality.
Well , yes and no. Yes, in the moment of a dialogue, one must observe ones reactions , if I may say. It is all part of selfknowledge. You point something to me , and I see the truth or the false of it. But these dialogues here are only one little aspect of our life. And are , by the way, to often drive by the intellect.
But as Chaley said: all one needs is to be aware and attentive, and observe oneself. The fact of the matter is that this is seen usually outside of discussions on this site, outside of dialogue - in real time. (end of quote) .
This forum is not the totality of our lives, is it? Just close you computer and you’re in an all different world . In the reality that surround us.
No, one doesn’t see it that way. One used the word grasp in the sense of understanding, getting, not in the sense of knowing. Psychologically speaking, there is nothing that “one needs to know”. It is understanding alone which is the antidote to conflict, within and without.
Aggression is always something prepared and thought out in advance. Like progress which K stated as follows:
“Originally I believe it meant ‘to enter into the enemy’s country fully armed’!”
K: Saanen, 5th Public Talk , 23 July 1974
When you say “how best to”, that implies the self wants to know. And what is wanted is a method, a system to follow and dictate one’s actions, one’s words. All actions trying to avoid conflict only create resistance, a dull mind, and complacency. It is the dull mechanical mind that seeks security at all costs, and it will find this security in some system of thought, usually positive thinking.
It’s like everything else, the moment one understands something/anything, everything happens naturally.
The totality is now. You may be in a dialogue; or you may be at home with family, or at work, or out shopping; or you may be alone on a walk in the woods. At this very moment we are in a dialogue together, that’s all. The totality of our lives is exactly where we happen to be right now. So it is what we are doing now that reveals this totality, not what may happen once the laptop lid is closed.
Though one has to define yet what you mean by the word totality. For me, the totality of our life , in the context that I use the word, mean different aspect of our life. If one has to have a dialogue about what’s going on in the world, or about sex, as an example, one gona have to close that computer at some point .
Is totality a quantity or a quality? Is the totality of our life a collection of thousands of dead fragments accumulated over the course of many years? Or is it possible to see the whole of life in a single action? To see the totality of oneself, does this take any time at all? If one is prejudiced, this is one’s totality - there isn’t an unprejudiced self hiding away in a different room.
Thought says that the content of consciousness “is thousands of dead fragments”, and consciousness is life itself, which is timeless, immortal, immeasurable, free of dead fragments. So the totality of consciousness is emptiness. It is everything and nothing because it can’t be contained
or measured.
I can almost agree with this. Is it true that ,“One can never have direct perception into the motives and values of another person”?
I ask because only someone with direct perception can say this, which means the reader must conclude that the writer is speaking from direct perception or is pretending to.
Can’t we leave it open and admit we know nothing about direct perception because it isn’t real for us?
Or do you know something we don’t?
Only the past can meet the present. And if it doesn’t like what it’s meeting, it can resist and stick with what it knows and continue the conflict. If, however, it is beyond liking and disliking to the point of no resistance, it can meet the present without baggage.
Are we saying that some people can read other people’s minds? And even if this crazy idea is true - so what ? These weirdos are obviously vanishingly rare.
I’m not saying that. I don’t presume to know what direct perception is, so I can’t say what its limits are. If direct perception is only possible when one is empty, for all I know, the contents of others may be glaringly obvious. I don’t have an empty mind, so I try keep it open, well ventilated.
So can thought say anything at all about consciousness without creating yet another dead fragment? Whether it is full or empty, measurable or immeasurable, imprisoned or free, have we ever really seen what it is?
)