Hi Wim and all. Can you give an example of thought used by intelligence?
Hi Sean,
I don’t think one can answer this because one have to decide if there was a difference and comparisation is typical for thought.
Which will not say that this statement is unintelligent ! 
1 Like
Ha, ha. I thought it was very intelligent Wim.
I think there is something interesting here though. I can see what Krishnamurti means when he talked about thought acting as a filter and distorting what we see. We don’t see the tree because all our previous knowledge of trees gets in the way. However, when we are communicating here that “filtering” may not always be operating. Communication requires thought to be used functionally but perhaps also in other ways where one’s conditioning doesn’t automatically come in and distort and narrow things. Thought produced the forum guidelines and they seem like an intelligent step in the organisation of how we communicate here.
But if all the avatars being active on this forum were acting intelligent those guidelines were not necessary, would they ?
What would you say is the essence of your own consciousness? Where would you look to answer this question? And what is it you would be looking at?
Hello Paul,
Thank you for accepting my invitation 
Interesting questions!
To attempt a response, I would begin with the question, what does it mean to be conscious? It is an automatic process or play between the senses and the brain in my body. The essence is a type of unknown energy that drives my body to interact with my environment via my brain/senses.
I am not sure, but if you are asking for a location, it would be right here where I am. It would be a similar process such as when looking (whether external or internal) for food, shelter, and etc. I am using the only tools available to me which are my senses and brain. I am looking via memories, knowledge, and thoughts.
I don’t know, but I think I’m looking at a type of energy that continuously processes stimuli. We may label its by-product or movement as physical action, awareness, thoughts, knowledge, conclusions, reactions, experiences, emotions, or etc.
Co-operation, it seems to me is what is ultimately called for. What is it that stands in the way of co-operation, is what must be discovered and gone beyond. Co-operation around the model of what is best for us, for the animals, for the planet. What prevents that co-operation? Greed? Individualism? Fear?
Hi Dan,
Yes, it is very strange that we co-operate to put a man on the moon, to send a robot to mars but not to make an end to the hunger in the world or prevent dictators to keep there positions.
There is scientific proof that co-operation is better for the economy than competition and yet we keep on doing it.
All three items you mentioned are involved and maybe even more. Like pride and hurt.
For two years I was co-working translating An Uncommon Collaboration for which I took the initiative and saw those two energies passing by.
Yes it is strange. Perhaps the work of JK, Bohm and others will erode the belief in ‘individualism’ eventually over time and head off the inevitable suffering and chaos that could lie ahead.
Is the actually seeing within ourselves what kind of energies are flowing around a contrbution to this eroding?
I can’t say. When the false is seen as false that’s the truth?..When it was discovered that the sun was not revolving around the earth all the mental structures, beliefs that supported that model, fell apart. Same with the earth being flat. Same with us being ‘individuals’? The JK discovery that “you are the world” puts the lie to being an isolated being (whether we can grasp the truth of that or not.) The possibility of it being true ‘erodes’ the source behind the terror.
But first of all it’s the environment that speaks to me, isn’t it? That’s where it begins. It speaks to me in the sense that I am aware of something other than myself, something outside the body as a physical fact, whether it is an inanimate object or a person. It tells me it is there. Is it possible to meet that stimulus without any complication? Because the moment I start to process what I see, I am already making it complicated. In other words, the essence of consciousness is the outward manifestation of the world. Inwardly, there is only the result of processing what I see, which one would call the content of consciousness. But the content itself has no real essence to it; it is a shadow formed from the processing.
The essence of consciousness is the entire universe. Consciousness is everything out there. The moment we assume that consciousness is something inward, inner, that’s the content speaking.
1 Like
Could you also say that the universe is aware of itself? And that “I am aware of… etc” is the ‘content’ falsely assuming itself to be somehow separate…a separate awareness?
I am aware of your question. So this question is you; and the response to your question is me. That’s already the processing at work and the forming of the shadows, which are the images and abstractions that exist in the space between us. Our questions and answers, our suppositions, our theories and beliefs - these are the contents of our consciousness. They have nothing to do with memory. But when we are thinking together only from memory, there is no such thing as separate awareness. Then there is only the fact or the total absence of fact; and we can move together in relationship without any shadows forming at all.
What??? Now we have a complete mish mash of terminology which I am not going to sort out. You have to be just grabbing words and inventing stories.
1 Like
Nicely put, yes it begins with contact with my body from the environment. Through our own physical experience we know for a fact that our senses are not reliable. One cannot say with certainty that our (shared) environment is outward or inward simply because it’s an obvious (or shared) observation. For instance, when dreaming the stimuli is not from our (shared) environment but from what seems like another created (obvious) environment. As in (our shared) environment, in a dream, we are completely immersed and “I am aware of something other than myself, something outside the body as a physical fact…”. In a dream, in that environment, we experience physical pain, worry, fear, anger, etc. When you dream of running away from danger or fear of falling down and the body physically jerks and is awakened. This stimulus was not from this environment. Another common example is with meditators that are in a dark room and they see brightness. The stimulus is darkness and they are seeing brightness. Another example is psychosomatic reactions. For example, someone who has a fear of public speaking has physical reactions such as sweaty hands/armpits, physical pain, increased heart rate, etc., without any physical environmental stimulus. If you like, we can try to move with this and explore more.
Would you agree that the “process of what I see” is essential in order to find food/water, find warmth, determine what is dangerous and so on? The “process of what I see” seems very important for the survival and continuity of my body. Instead, isn’t the desire to meet stimulus without any complication the beginning of complication?
At this moment, I question if there is such a thing as consciousness and could only know what being conscious is. As I see it, the labels of content of consciousness or consciousness are simply the process/byproduct between the senses and brain. And we know very little about this complex dance to say it has an essence, no essence or anything. Again, I would label the byproduct as an unknown energy. And I can speak of it as I sense this unknown energy within me as the labels such as emotions, sorrow, knowledge, etc. And being conscious and the essence of being conscious is simply:
This sounds super interesting!
If you like, we go slow and explore deeper of what you mean by consciousness is beyond being conscious (beyond the play between the senses/brain)? How does this process go outside of you? How is it relative to the environment “everything out there” beyond the ideas?
Perhaps the moment we process that there is a consciousness “as out there” or as inward, that’s the beginning of “complication”?
There is an ‘inward’ consciousness or ‘awareness’ in every living thing. It is critical for survival. It is a ‘limited’ awareness depending on the specie. I am watching an osprey aka sea eagle building a nest. It flies into the woods along the river and snaps branches off certain trees and brings them to the nest site where its mate weaves them into the proper size and shape. Very specific ‘content’ for the osprey. But also very limited, in this case also dangerous. The osprey’s awareness doesn’t have the same capability as ‘mine’. I see that the choice spot the osprey has chosen is the flat top of a neighbors boat. That neighbor comes to this second house periodically. And when he comes and finds the large nest atop his boat perhaps with growing chicks, he will do something about it. And it will not be ‘good’ for the osprey. My awareness can foretell the future more or less. But this awareness of ‘mine’ is also limited like the osprey’s isn’t it? That was why I suggested that ‘awareness’ itself may not be limited in itself, but universal , only limited in this world of ‘things’?
But the human brain has an “infinite” possibility if it can be free from its ‘individual’ content?
We have enough food and water; we are warm enough; we feel safe. All our physiological needs are met. Can we meet one another without a flicker of complication? This has nothing to do with desire because we have never done it. We can only desire that which already exists within memory. We can call it desire when there is an image based on memory; this is something completely different.
It is only the processing that complicates it. Once I see that you are part of my consciousness, the processing has already come to a stop.
Hello @DanMcD,
Sounds like you have a great view! Enjoy!
Yes, there is an inward process ‘awareness’ (between the brain/senses) that is automatic and it is critical for our survival. The problem may lie when we take that process or its byproduct and go beyond survival and identifying with it. We first label it, place value, and identify (as ‘mine’ or separate as out there) with it. And I was suggesting that perhaps this labeling (identification) is the beginning of “complication”. As for other animals, ghosts, spirits, etc., we cannot know for certain their capacity.
I am not sure about this one. Can we unpack it slowly? Sorry, can you reword it for me? Also, what do you mean by “the world of things”?
You can glean a great deal about an animal’s mental capacity by close observation of them in their environment.
The manifest world of Nature, all living ‘things’.
1 Like