Before we go into this i would like to ask ( and probably this question must have been zsked on previous occasions) what is the difference (if any) between the brain, the mind and thinking about it?
Does it make sense if i say that the brain is the physical part and that the mind is the outcome of the activity of the brain.
If i say i can think about this and put it into words and thoughts there seems to be yet another agent. Is this thinking?
We think about sthg and immediatly there is a division between the thinker and the thought? What happens if one is aware of this process? Does anything happen at all?
Might be interesting to go into this …
Yes, but because K said that the “mind” is beyond the brain, in a K forum one might use “thought” or “intellect” or “cognition” instead.
If i say i can think about this and put it into words and thoughts there seems to be yet another agent. Is this thinking?
There’s deliberate thinking and spontaneous thought; the thinking “I” seem to be doing, and thoughts that occur spontaneously. The agency is deciding, choosing, to think about something carefully instead of reactively.
If I say i can think about this and put it into words and thoughts there seems to be yet another agent. Is this thinking?
Thought goes on constantly because of the ongoing conflict of incoherence, but it can be harnessed (by intention, decision, choice), for deliberate practical use.
Thank you for your answers and the energy you put into.
But, and correct me if i am wrong we seem to walk on the path of knowing.
I have the impression that you seem to know every answer on every question , i put.
It is a kind of irony that most of the times i am not longing for an answer.
Maybe there is a misunderstanding going on, concerning what it is to dialogue.
To be honest i miss here a kind of togetherness in looking at the question.
I still think that the answer is less important.
I’m wondering : do you feel @Inquiry has understood, addressed your questions? And do you feel you understand what he is talking about? Is there communication?
And PS. If a problem/question is fully addressed/solved, surely thats a good thing?
Of course, and maybe I shouldn’t be answering any questions, regardless of how obvious the answer seems to me.
Looking together is fun, and a lot of people think it’s better than just looking, but I don’t see why. Maybe you can explain why it’s better to ponder things with others than by oneself.
I’m not attached to my answers. There’s nothing final or conclusive about them. As K said about his teaching, “tear it apart”.
Why is it better to ponder (look) at things together rather than do it on my own?
I do hope that you have put this question to yourself rather than to me because it seems impossible for me to answer it.
Hope you could see this as an answer.
Nevertheless i think it is an intriguing question and i will cherish it.
I have put it to myself and I don’t see why it’s better to ponder (go into) a question with others than by oneself. You, however, don’t agree and I wonder why, and you’re the only one who can answer this question.
Hope you could see this as an answer.
Sorry to dash your hope, but you’re evading the question.
Since you express the opinion that questions should be pondered with others rather than by oneself, I’m curious as to why you feel this way, and you tell me to ask myself.
Nevertheless i think it is an intriguing question and i will cherish it.
Don’t cherish it! Ask yourself why you think questions should be pondered with others rather than by oneself?
It might be a practical thing.
How do i react on some specific answer or question?
F.i. you put the question or answer again in the thread an then you react.
How this is done in Kinfonet?
Oh, but i did , because i liked it.
And the answer that came about is very simple : because it is impossible to live on your own. Wether you like it or not people are related to eachother.
Not that I want to impose sthg to you!
And yes, most of the time we are pondering on our own but that could easely lead to isolation and you know as well as i do what this brings about.
I hope you have your answer.
Thank you.
Shall we ponder your answer together?
The conditioned brain is confused, so when two confused brains ponder a question and one brain comes up with a satisfying answer that the other brain finds unsatisfying, the question remains open until both brains agree on an answer that is acceptable.
That’s why we have a forum where any brain can bring questions it has pondered or found satisfying answers to, and submit them to the scrutiny of others who share our interest in the subject under discussion, in this case, K’s teaching and it’s implications.
To put it simply, a question arises, I ponder it and if I arrive at a satisfying answer, I post it so that others can weigh in on it by proposing a more satisfying answer or letting the answer stand. Likewise with questions I can’t answer, I can peruse the answers that come forward.
I submit that there’s as much to be said for pondering and answering by oneself as there is for submitting one’s questions and answers to the examination of others; that neither way is better - they’re both essential.
1 Like
The fact is that most of the time I am not satisfied. Not with the questions and even more , not with the answers. Why should i?
It is clear to me that any answer will provoke new questions. At least that is what i think.
But having said this i already doubt it.
What about “asking the right question”? Asat our mutual friend put it so nicely.
Does the right question needs an answer?
We are so used ( i refuse deliberately the word “,conditioned”) to get an answer upon a question (since childhood and long before)., that we don’t ask ourselves : why do we want answer? Why are answers so important?
I am not talking about the physical world, s?s? scientific world but the psychological world, the world of human relatonship… and in particular this little world of Kinfonet (which ofcourse is a reflection , a mirror of the entire world). We are the world, no,?
Are we together in all this?
I’m not sure but the QOTD made me realize more profounly the different states of knowing:
“Knowledge is never complete, can never be complete. That is a fact, the scientists can explore not only the atom but also the universe, the stars, what is beyond the stars, but their knowledge is limited, they can never, never have complete knowledge of the universe, any more than a mathematician, or a biologist, or any kind of specialist’s knowledge must invariably be limited, which means, listen carefully, that knowledge always goes with ignorance. You follow my point? I wonder if you do. As knowledge can never be complete, it must always have the shadow of ignorance with it. And out of this knowledge springs thought. So thought is always limited. Right? Please come with me, move.”
So there is wrong knowledge, technological knowledge, psychological knowledge, but whatever the knowledge is even true knowledge it’s always incomplete and all of it is in one basket, interwined .
Why can’t there be a ‘complete knowledge’? A complete knowledge of something with no “shadow of ignorance”?
…and if there can’t be such a thing, why even bring it up?
Everything is moving to a greater or lesser extent and knowledge is static and thus it is always behind the fact.
The point of naming it is the fact that too much value is generally placed on knowledge.
We should respect the relativity of knowledge.
1 Like
Especially when you’re about to chop off someone’s head (or shout at your child) - with the righteous anger of them that’s right.
1 Like
Both pessimism as well as optimism then, arise from a static, limited knowledge? Psychologically from a world view that I believe in? Consciously or unconsciously?
Will you know when you’re asking the “right question”? I never give it a thought. Whatever question arises is what matters.
we don’t ask ourselves : why do we want answer? Why are answers so important?
We don’t always know when a question is rhetorical, so we ponder it. It might arise for its own sake, or to provoke investigation.
and in particular this little world of Kinfonet (which ofcourse is a reflection , a mirror of the entire world). We are the world, no,?
If “we are the world” refers to the human brain’s conditioned limitation, yes. But since we, the world of conditioned human brains, are not free, are confused, and don’t truly know anything that isn’t self-evident or demonstrable, why do we repeat this K-ism like parrots?
Do we actually know that we are the world; that the observer is the observed, or do we just assume that these statements are true because K pronounced them as such? Ask yourself and you’ll have to admit that you don’t really know if either of these statements are true because you can’t perceive anything directly, but only through the distorted lens of your conditioning.
We are the world in that all we can do is believe, disbelieve, or be honest enough to admit to not knowing. We are conditioned to lie to ourselves, and K-believers are no exception.
This ‘teaching’ then is that psychological thought must somehow end. The awareness of the ‘self-image’, the “me and mine” must ‘become’ so clear that its presence in the mind is equivalent to nearing a dangerous precipice, or a deadly snake, or a jar of poison etc ?
‘You’ as self, must be seen as an ‘alien’?
1 Like
Spot on. The world is in a terrific state. It is a fact and you cannot deny it. That must be clear.
We, human beings, have created and are still creating this world.
So, what are we doing about it?
We listen to K, we are discussing what he is saying and is this the end of it?
Or is it only a beginning? To discover oneself in every kind of relation, whether it be with your friend, with your neighbour , with s.o.on Kinfonet, with a total stranger,
With nature? Maybe this will be a good start, because nature is not demanding.
So all this might reveal sthg about yourself, the self. Isn’t this what learning is all about?
1 Like
O[quote=“Inquiry, post:79, topic:2176, full:true”]
Will you know when you’re asking the “right question”? I never give it a thought. Whatever question arises is what matters.
we don’t ask ourselves : why do we want answer? Why are answers so important?
We don’t always know when a question is rhetorical, so we ponder it. It might arise for its own sake, or to provoke investigation.
and in particular this little world of Kinfonet (which ofcourse is a reflection , a mirror of the entire world). We are the world, no,?
If “we are the world” refers to the human brain’s conditioned limitation, yes. But since we, the world of conditioned human brains, are not free, are confused, and don’t truly know anything that isn’t self-evident or demonstrable, why do we repeat this K-ism like parrots?
Do we actually know that we are the world; that the observer is the observed, or do we just assume that these statements are true because K pronounced them as such? Ask yourself and you’ll have to admit that you don’t really know if either of these statements are true because you can’t perceive anything directly, but only through the distorted lens of your conditioning.
We are the world in that all we can do is believe, disbelieve, or be honest enough to admit to not knowing. We are conditioned to lie to ourselves, and K-believers are no exception.
[/quote]
Ofcourse there is great danger in repeating what others have said.
But ofcourse you will never know whether someone is repeating (the words are the same and rephrasing is the same).
And if i may ask : does it matter at all?