Yes, and this is what we do…what we have to do to keep going on in the usual way. Once we’ve chosen to do what the human brain has been doing for mellenia, we can’t choose to opt out. All we can do is get better at doing it, which means being believers, brains pretending to know what is true.
I’m getting better when I try to be more mindful, more determined to quit doing the mindless, reactive things I do, and I’m pleased with the results. I’m becoming better at being the me I should be. And it never occurs to me to ask Who/what am I to know who/what I should be?
I believe I know what’s “good” for I, for me, because I am what I believe, and I can believe whatever I choose to believe for whatever reason is most compelling at this moment under these circumstances. I am halved, i.e., I have a self, and that means I always have someone to persuade, whether by means of providing pleasure or inflicting pain.
The answer/question does look a lot like a scene in the film “the life of brian”.
[quote=“WimOpdam, post:22, topic:2889”]
The answer/question does look a lot like a scene in the film “the life of brian”.
[/quote]?
How so?
Do you know what self-knowledge is, or are you incapable of answering the question directly? You could give your own answer, give the standard definition, or quote Krishnamurti, but you choose to make light of the question, as if taking it seriously is beneath you.
by asking such questions is proof of taking my description not seriously and as such Indicates exactly who you are.
I am nothing but words written to one who knows exactly who he imagines himself to be.
Which is your image, right!
My image of you is based on the words you choose to represent your image of yourself.
Sounds like getting stuck in dialogue usually has a lot to do with images. Who’s the smelliest, who’s got the best opinions, who squashes who - the dialogue is still offering data, furiously shining a light on who we are.
Are we seeing whats happening in plain sight? What we are being, doing? Or are we stuck in darkness as usual?
There aren’t many active threads going on here at the moment, but all seem very saturated with Testosterone (eg. me clever so me squash you)
1 Like
There’s nothing wrong with being clever if you’re being honest. The issue is honesty and how honest one can be with oneself, one’s bias, prejudice, fear of failure, humiliation, desperation, etc.
Krishnamurti made it clear that if self-knowledge is not one’s main concern, one is fragmented (more than one), confused, conflicted, regardless of how serious one intends to be. Is it even possible to be serious when one is not one, but two or more thoughts battling, competing for attention and priority?
Why do we depend on reason to determine what is true? If there is no truth without reason, and truth is always a matter of what argument wins the debate, “truth” is just a word for what I believe.
Are we seeing whats happening in plain sight? What we are being, doing? Or are we stuck in darkness as usual?
If we were not in the dark, not profoundly confused and conflicted, we wouldn’t have to ask. Yes, we are in the dark.
1 Like
