Apparently there are at least 4 types of ‘neurons’ . Perhaps some of these may account for the possibility of ‘seeing’ in the present without apparently using thought as a response of memory. Perhaps a different type of memory sees the ‘wrong path’ and so is not followed. And the old patterns in the brain no longer operate via thought. This might also be the ‘mutation of the brain cells’ as talked about by K and Bohm.
This all can be very interesting for anyone curious, but shouldn’t detract from the urgency of seeing the devious movement of ‘self’ as it arises.
1 Like
The brain is the control house. It can access memories from many different sources and decide which to keep and which to throw away or dismiss. But what is a psychological memory?
Yes, because thought imposes itself between the watcher and the watched, between the observer and what he is observing. Why?
Yes, the reactions of violence are real and facts. But I am just now questioning if any statement is a fact? Who is saying or seeing this fact? Could this be a reaction? It seems that the identification of a fact arises from the desire for the opposite.
The fact may be the result of a reaction. You criticise me; and I react. My reaction probably arises from the image I have of myself as being above criticism, which is a common enough image. My reaction may be overt or suppressed, but at some level it will be a violent reaction because the image is invariably fighting back. The violent reaction is a fact; it cannot be denied. In what way is one aware of these reactions? I think this is your question. Is there an awareness only of the consequences of the violent reaction? Or is there an awareness of the root of that violent reaction? Or awareness of both the consequences and the root at the same time. In other words, the violence itself is unremarkable, unimportant. But the revelation of the image is a totally different affair.
Then why accept the fact?
It seems to be fear of ending psychologically.
Fear ( and pleasure) sustain continuity (of thought) and prevent “looking”
So, freedom (to look ) seems to be a prerequisite
It is not about accepting the fact. That’s just a mental trick, no different from rejecting it, pushing it away. Acceptance is also a reaction; it is another way of forming an image about oneself as an entity that has control over its own actions. So here is the central image: control. Here is the heart of our suffering.
I am not so sure. It may just be a stupid habit. There may be nothing too complicated behind it.
Yes, the center seems to be at the heart of all conflict.
Can you look at facts one more time with me? Sorry to insist and thank you for engaging. I may not be expressing it well but I will try one more time. I question the notion, I am X [angry, violent, fear, etc.], it seems that thought creates a separation and we stop looking. What do we really know about ourselves to make such a general statement? We know that when these thoughts X arise, we generally don’t like these states. It seems to create a problem for thought to solve. If you know X as a fact, then there is no need to look or if you do look, you are looking in the known (the past). What if there is only looking and no problem or label to react to? It is not about accepting or rejecting X; it is about looking.
Yes control in the sense that what took place could have been different than what took place. ‘Could’ implies that there were alternatives and then the suffering (thought), is, that a different, ‘better’ one wasn’t taken, didn’t occur,etc… Thought as memory keeps the image of the past action alive as if it actually exists. As if it ‘happened’. It is different it seems with the animals who react in the moment and then drop it and move on. They’re perhaps not ‘recording’ events as we do so not creating a linear reality of time, as past, present, future? Or if so, very tailored to their physical survival.
It is the revelation of the image that matters. First I am violent. At that very moment of violent reaction there is no separation between me and the violence; the separation occurs only when I realise that there has been a reaction that contradicts my self-imagery as someone who is peaceful, caring and orderly. But at the moment of violent reaction, that reaction is all that exists. There is no me at all in that moment because I have lost control of the imagery. The violence is a fact; the thought that I am violent is a movement away from the fact into an idea which can then be countered with an opposite idea. Do you see the difference? The thought that I am violent is a means to regain control of the image by then imposing another image. That’s why the violence itself is irrelevant.
They have no images to protect. Once their physical territory is secure, it’s over until the next time. But they have no psychological territory, which humans seem to have added on to the physical.
Yes. And yes, the seeing of the image is what matters.
Wait a minute. Now we are talking about the psychology of violence? This is nonsense. I have to ask, seriously, what is violence. Then we find K has talked about this, it is fundamentally the division, internal and external, and that is also at the nature of suffering. It is a fundamental condition. Discussing what is known, maybe not you, but in general, it is a field of knowledge, is not seriously looking at suffering, or violence. So we have not looked directly, very closely, and seen the division. It is not seeing, in some objective sense, or informed sense, it is a realisation, an insight.
What is your question?
Is having a question a prerequisite to being in this dialogue?
Is there a need to be asked questions?
A need to give an answer?
From where do these answers come?
A dialogue itself is a question to the universe, isn’t it? That’s the feeling I have about it. Then there may be a tremendous answer, not necessarily in the form of words and phrases.
Is dialogue only questions seeking answers of a person(s) or the Universe?
Is it necessary or satisfying for us to have an answer?
If so, where does the answer rest in us?
Further, from where does the question arise?
It requires honesty, to see clearly, to listen carefully, to be aware if there is any self satisfying/accumulation in finding an answer or by having a question.
Or can we see that the question is the answer. In truly ‘listening’ both answer and question becomes redundant. Is this not so?
In this listening; meditation, both question/answer die, and space is revealled there.
The space of the emptying of mind, its contents…it is in the not knowing that the mind becomes spacious, limitless
Relationship, however this is expressed; through dialogue or other, is fundamental to our existence. We know this. But we must, I feel, meet the other from our realisation and deep understanding of this inner spaciousness; this then offers freedom for both/all.
Remembering that the description is not what is described, the state of ‘not-knowing‘ IS freedom from the known ‘, isn’t it?
I am not so sure it requires anything. If it is a crooked question, the dialogue will reveal that to us. And, generally, we put a lot of crooked questions. So let’s meet and face our crookedness and dishonesty first. Let’s just meet one another as we are now without making any demands on ourselves or on the others. Then there is a real possibility of learning in relationship. Any question will do it. If there is an answer waiting in the background as we pose a question, it is already a dishonest question.