Good point.
There are degrees of self-awareness and the self-knowledge that ensues. It depends on how much the brain wants to know about the self, the ego, the bundle of beliefs and conclusions that one’s psychological content is.
Nice of you to say that - but if you are still a philosophical nihilist, “unlikely” or “dgdhsjju” are just as valid responses, non?
I am wondering what the point of meaningless enquiry actually is? Is it just for the potential pleasure of social interaction?
The issue was determinism/free will/agency - of course I agree that it is possible to identify what we think might be potential aspects of that process - ie. name some potential causes and conditions
For example, to simplify what we’re saying : If we say that A leads to B (eg. seeing a beautiful object provokes the feeling of awe and greed - due to past experiences conditioning the habitual responses of my brain) - but that subsequently B leads to C (eg. a further emotional and intellectual response to that greed) - we are not presenting an argument against cause and effect. Unless we are claiming that that effect C was not caused.
Btw - not really related to the argument but determinism is not necessarily purely linear ie. not one cause for one effect - but rather an arborescent structure ie a network of connections
PS. Hint : the best argument against determinism is randomness (which may exist at the subatomic level) - However randomness is not an argument for freewill or agency
At this point you’re faced with a new mantra: living is believing!!!
I think Krishnamurti would once again say: ‘I give up!’ as he did before.
If we cannot see our cage, it is pointless to speculate about freedom or methods of escape.
And in the case of determinism and agency - the question comes down to : am I somehow separate from reality/experience? Or do I have some intrinsic existence and power of action that is not determined by what is?
Hello, macdougdoug
I think the problem is not about seeing the cage if by this you mean that people are somehow aware that the way they live is living in a cage. The problem is that people feel they live in a cage but they don’t care to understand why it is so. It’s not understanding that makes people speculate, I think. Then, you bring in this metaphysical issue whether we are 100% conditioned in our actions or not. I would say that what I know is that we can change completely as human beings, but we don’t know all the potential qualities of a human being. Very simply, Krishnamurti said more than once that if you have been going north and you find it is the wrong direction you must turn round in another direction if you want to go somewhere. It’s up to each one of us to decide what we want to do with our lives otherwise we will be zombies in this world… or endlessly speculating abou what is believing or not believing, which is more or less the same.
Agreed
I don’t think that any conclusions about this question (which I did not bring up) is central to transformation (freedom from the known) - but it is related to our experience of reality - and so, if people are telling me what they know, or asking for my opinion on the subject, I like to enquire into, look at, what we are saying/believing.
Also, I don’t think its worth speaking of the metaphysical aspects (whatever that means) of the human experience - thats why I try to stay with the practical (evidence based) aspects - and to regularly check for nonsense (unreasonable, illogical stuff).
Maybe it would be “metaphysical” to discuss the meaning of freedom from the known in a deterministic universe - sounds like an interesting topic, but we are not in that space yet (the basic facts are still too fuzzy)
Yes, macdougdoug , I totally agree with you that the basic facts are still too fuzzy and no matter how appealing metaphysical subjects may sound - the one in question is indeed quite appealing - it won’t help at this point, I guess.
I am wondering what the point of meaningless enquiry actually is?
Depends what you mean by ‘meaningless enquiry.’ Does believing there is no absolute meaning mean meaningless enquiry?
Is it just for the potential pleasure of social interaction?
For me the pleasure of interaction is part of the desire to post and respond here. Friendship, community, not just spiritual-scientific rigor.
Sorry, I’m stiil reacting to your statement that nonsense and imagination is on a par (as valid as) evidence and reason/logic - (am I strawmanning you here?) - when it comes to enquiring into our actual human experience (which is not to say that nonsense and imagination/speculation plays no part in our experience : they obviously do very much affect us)
This affects my motivation to take the time to go step by step through seemingly obvious and simple questions.
I still need to know what you mean by ‘enquiring into our actual human experience.’ I get why you wouldn’t want to take the time explain this step by step, that’s tedious! How about you give me a distilled sentence? Then I can answer your question.
Believing is all the self-centered brain can do because it can’t be self-centered without believing it is the center of everything.
Obviously, the self is not the center of anything but the brain that establishes it as such by dogged determination and wily duplicity.
Hello, Inquiry!
The brain doesn’t have to be self-centered, but every single brain belongs to a particular self, there’s no other way for a brain to exist, I think. The self’s existence doesn’t have to be either dogged or wily, so there’s nothing you have to believe or deny. You only have to look at reality and let it tell its story, so no theories.
The whole point of K’s suggestions is that we don’t exist! What is taken for an existing individual self is a trick of the process of thought. Very deep and very radical. Turns the whole human understanding of what we are upside down; we are nothing (not-a-thing). “The house is burning”! “Freedom is essential”. A psychological revolution is needed.
The sanity that Jess is pointing at, I don’t think can outpace the ingenuity and greed that will make things worse than they are for not only humanity but for the critters we live with.
He isn’t pointing at sanity - he’s pointing at his wishful thinking.
Thought has performed this trick upon itself, which is the really radical part of all this. It is not that ‘we’ are being tricked by thought because there is no ‘we’ other than thought. This is why it is extremely important to explore and to work out what it means for thought to be aware of itself. It is a wholly different kind of awareness from anything the brain has had to deal with before.
Most people won’t look at this except through thought, which already supplies enough answers to perpetuate its own trickery. So answers are totally useless here. Then is it possible for thought to find out what happens when it remains only as a question? This is the beginning of real meditation. From this meditation alone comes the possibility of intelligence and compassion.
One or two people who are serious about this will be enough to effect tremendous change in the world. They will find each other out. They will live together. Those who are not serious can leave it alone and carry on adding to the complications and confusions of thought.
Love is our first and only step. If not love then what else? Look around.
Hello, Dan!
Yes, Krishnamurti says many things… many things that we must understand in context. He says we are nothing when he means that we can die at any moment having no control over death and when we die all that we have accumulated doesn’t go with us, as simple as that. He also says that we are the world. And he also says that we are not individuals. He also speaks of the dignity of standing alone. Considering all this, instead of saying that we are not a thing, as you do, maybe it’s more understandable to say we are not ONE thing, as we are, as I understand it, a process, we’re something that can change and will change in one direction or the other. As we were saying somewhere above the basic facts are still fuzzy ( macdougdoug ‘s words) so metaphysical matters are not advisable at this point, if we want to be truthful.
I hear what he is saying is that there IS NO ‘accumulator’! The accumulator IS the accumulation. There is nothing ‘metaphysical’ about it at all. No ‘observer’, no ‘thinker’, no ‘experiencer’! You hear it differently.
1 Like
In the Urgency of Change, he says “Change is the denial of change”. To me that says that real change is to move away from our ordinary idea of change and discover an entirely different approach to ourselves; that ordinary change takes place within the ‘system’ as Bohm calls it and involves time. That kind of change can never bring about the ‘urgent’ change that is ‘essential’.
1 Like
Definitely, Dan, we’re looking at it differently, as you say. It seems to me there is nothing prosaic about speaking about the accumulation without an accumulator, etc. That can happen in very special moments of meditation and eventually if you’re liberated. If that hasn’t to do with metaphysical matters I am wrong, but that is how I see it at the moment. So much more about change without time. It sounds wonderful no doubt, also I understand ‘without time’ as a special state of meditation.
But there is no you to be liberated. That’s what we have been saying. Then it is the most simple thing in the world because all sense of personal effort and achievement is dissolved. Can thought liberate itself immediately from all connections to the separate self as me and you? Once it is questioned then the connection has already been broken. Therefore it is necessary to find out what it is that seeks to reform and strengthen the connection. What is it that says, ‘I exist!’?