Inquiry,
re: the awakening of intelligence:
The only way to find out is to experiment with observing “what is”…
1 Like
Paul - there are no answers.
It is about understanding the movement of thought as technical and psychological, out of which arises the ending of self.
When the movement of technical thought is in place, regardless of who says what, it is immediately clear whether or not the movement of self is understood.
Why Paul? What is the problem?
It is about finding out - laying the ground for inquiry - making sure we are not deluded by the ‘tricks of the monkey’ - the tricks of the self.
What is there to lose Paul? The self?
1 Like
The only relationships worth exploring are our own - in fact that’s all we can do - even when I judge others, am I not still referencing my own image of the world?
mac,
Well, apparently, you are unable to clarify which relationships you are referring to and all you can do is repeat the party line derived from god knows where - using the royal “we”, as a means to avoid and escape observing your “self”. Okay, that’s mac. One note, however, when you say “that’s all we can do”, you are drawing a patently wrong conclusion about everyone here. There are some people on this site, who have been using discussions - even dialogue - as well as some members of the Kinfonet Dialogue Group who have also been using K as well, to explore their selves, through awareness. So, when you say, “that’s all we can do”, you are blocking yourself from any other discoveries. No one can know exactly how far one can go… The future is not written in cement… unless…
From that, one wonders, what has provoked such a choice? You see, one wonders whether anyone who has chosen to believe that he/she can go no further with K because, basically, such a person has done things in their past that are so terribly incorrect that they now find themselves stuck in some barren land of words…
If I may ask the same question again : Are your conclusions about me necessarily correct, or are they more likely an image conjured up via psychological conditioning (a judgement based on your subjective experience - a relationship with yourself etc)?
nb. I do feel a bit pushy - asking the same question at least 3 times - so I’ll back off now 
1 Like
What does nb stand for?
Its ancient code for btw or fyi etc - actually I should have used the code PS. meaning “and just another thing before I go”
Unfortunately the teaching of K was always entertainment for many, as he pointed out. Not all however…
Becoming?
1 Like
Right, but they’re just not quite ‘there’ yet’?
‘Becoming’ has no proper place in the realm of the psyche. In the psyche / mind, it is to use K’s word, “occupation”. occupying the mind.
1 Like
You’re quoting charley, Patricia…
Dan - ‘Becoming’ is entertainment for the self.
One is alive, and one is of the disorder.
Start here: The self IS disorder.
And if not now - when?
When is human disorder dire enough to take it very seriously? What prevents genuine inquiry into this very basic fact?
The self?
Sorry Inquiry - yes that is true. The quote was not clear. Thank you for pointing it out.
So Charley - site members doing ‘considerable good work on themselves’ is becoming. Is it not?
Pat
No…
“Certainly is Paul. What occurs when assumption is built upon assumption over centuries of human endeavour. It is quite a tangle to unravel.”
Patricia from God, soul or what happens after death - #33 by Patricia
-
“That centre is the content of consciousness, the content is consciousness; there is no consciousness if there is no content. You must work this out…”
-
“It is there; I have to work it out. So, I have to find out If it is the truth, or if it is a falsehood. Which means I must exercise my reason, my capacity, my intelligence. I must work.”
-
“Or has he to work tremendously on himself? You may point out, you may say, “Look, go through that door”, but he has to do the work entirely from the beginning to the end.”
K: The Awakening of Intelligence
Charley - Yes - It is work.
But it is technical work - It does not require a self to run it.
While the self is acting, there will be becoming.
No-one wants to go there - that is understood. It is much easier to blame ‘thought’ so that the self can continue in all its glory as an ‘improved self’.
But as K said: It is still the monkey! (1984 “The Brain Seminar” Brockwood Park, Meeting 3.)
The insight is in seeing that attachment clogs up the house of the mind.
While the clogging up will end with that insight - which does not require work - emptying the house of all attachment does require work - that is: letting go.
Pat,
You have had a real insight (not an intellectual insight), but an insight that caused “mutation” in the “brain cells” (as per K)?
I don’t quite understand this - (psychological) thought is the self, isn’t it? The self is made of memory, and thought is memory.
Maybe you are responding to someone on the thread who is using the word ‘thought’ in a different way, but K was quite clear that the self, the ‘me’, the ego is put together by thought and nothing else.
Hello James -
Thought is essential for the brain to function in order - as technical thinking.
When thought measures itself as attachment to the senses, then psychological thinking as the self arises.
K did not always make this clear, which allows for the mistake of blaming all thought for the specific disorder to self.
Charley - there is no ‘you’ or ‘me’ when the self ends.
Patricia,
One only asked that because you brought up the word “becoming” out of the blue, and it was obvious that no one had brought that up. And, there was nothing leading to bring that up. One understands now where Patricia is at… 