I dunno, the notion of a perfectly functional ‘healthy’ brain is kinda dull to me. In the brief periods when my brain has ventured close to that state (doubt it’s ever fully reached it), I’ve typically grown mightily bored and manufactured some kind of trouble to make things interesting again. I treasure the brain’s oddness, the creative kind (artists and interesting wackadoodles), not the violent and ugly kind (Trump), it’s what I’m most fond of in human beings.
That said, I totally get why you would want to have a fully functional brain. What a powerful tool!
Does that mean you aren’t open to there being a ‘spiritual’ side to reality? The ground, for example, that Krishnamurti and Bohm explored in The Ending of Time dialogues.
Who is it that is going to wield this “tool”? There is something wrong with the brain and it senses this and wants to change it, it sees the damage it is doing to the critters, to themselves and it’s looking for a way to go beyond it. Nothing “spiritual about it.
Is this still a question or by now an observation?
If the brain is indeed dysfunctional and the brain also needs to be examined, we need to distinguish where it is functioning properly and where it is not. Distinguishing, I think, is far too often confused with separating. In distinguishing you keep the whole whole and in separating you break it.
It is thought stating a problem, it is thought wanting to solve it? That is the purpose of thought in practical affairs: Identifiying the origin of the waterpuddle under the sink and then finding ways to fix it.
But it is us which we see as a problem, so how shall we solve that? It cannot be solved without us disappearing. I don’t know if is okay for you to bring in quotes from another thread “Core of the teaching”, tell me if it isn’t :
and
One is revolted by something - this is direct, it is clear without the translation of thought.
If I may reiterate the above statement, to get another idea of what is being said :
I have a an image of a thing, and a relation towards that image. I have functioned within the confines of this relationship and it has confirmed itself.
Or in other words : I like good things, good things is what I like.
Disappointing according to me, based on my relationship to the image I have of these things.
I project an image of something bad, react to the image I have projected, which confirms that it is therefore a bad thing.
Regarding Art and creation : the expression of one’s inner world can be fascinating, but does not justify violence. The Zen master calligrapher, even an “enligthened” one, can still recognise suffering; and can still express themselves within recognised artistic restrictions.
We like to feel good, feeling good is what we like.
Sometimes being happy feels good, so we want to feel happy. Sometimes feeling sad feels good, we want to feel sad. Move towards feeling good, away from feeling bad, it’s our 13.7 billion year old legacy. We’ve just gotten a bit more sophisticated with our goods and bads.
We are no longer following any “experimental dialogue” rules - that fell apart long ago (at around post 08 of now 100)
So so tricky.
If it is the movement of self, that thinks : hmm maybe I can improve, become better, more wonderful, more groovy, more compassionate - maybe I can profit somehow from this. Then I suppose we are caught up in the desirer desiring something more desirable - I think I am bad, maybe I can get better.
I project my reality, and react to it.
This is just the problem reacting within its internally consistant world view.
If the brain’s capacity for awareness is functioning, the brain can find out how its current modus operandi is dysfunctional.
Distinguishing, I think, is far too often confused with separating. In distinguishing you keep the whole whole and in separating you break it.
The only way to know what it means to “keep the whole” is to be doing it, and according to K, we are not whole, but fragmented.
Distinguishing is attending to one feature of a composition for the purpose of closer scrutiny - not separating or removing it from the whole composition.
Yes
I was asking Douglas or Dan if they are averse to it, as some people don’t like it when Ute transferres their statement to another context.Ute might think it is fitting there, the authors might not and object to her doing so.
It’s like a hall of mirrors in some castle my family and me was visiting in my youth on a guided tour. There were mirrors on both sides.The group went on to the next room and I remained there to look at my mirrorimage, which was reflected by the mirror on the other side and this again was reflected, and so on and on. What had been build to please the kings and his entourages vanity caused a feeling of utter isolation, it felt totally weird to see my reflection somehow reflected infinitely.
Where it is not functioning properly is in not shedding the image forged of itself during childhood but continuing as an adult to carry it into each present moment. Stifling its (infinite?) potential to develop?
Cont.
For this ‘development’ to take place or freedom from the past, there it seems has to be an end to the almost constant intrusion of thought (maintaining the self image put together in childhood?). For me ‘development’ of the brain would be its ability to be silent, empty, freed from the constant movement (noise) of thought.
Exactly what I am saying in a simple way.
Take a wine glass as long as you distinguish the foot from the chalice it stays whole, if you separate them it is broken.
The thought process is a very complex but whole process and to understand it you have to pay attention to many elements that play a role in it.
Isn’t object and subject often separated while in the process both play a role?
Brain’s capacity for awareness is another element in that process.
The way this is communicated here gives the impression of separation rather than distinction…
