Does it matter to you? Does it matter that someone is just repeating quotes that K has spoken why does that matter, if i may ask?
Does it matter that we are parrots? Maybe you are right about it and you may say so.
But isn’t it up to me to look at your words and maybe learn about it.
Would that come close to self-reflexion?
To look in the mirror?
I wonder …
What matters is that the brain will never know what matters until/unless it is silent, empty, beyond the limits of its conditioning.
Does anything matter more to the conditioned brain than its self-serving illusions?
Does it matter that we are parrots? Maybe you are right about it and you may say so. But isn’t it up to me to look at your words and maybe learn about it.
Of course, but are you more likely or less likely to look and learn when someone points out what you’re unaware of doing?
1 Like
Question: how come that we canno[quote=“DanMcD, post:80, topic:2176, full:true”]
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 ?
[/quote]
t see the danger actually and not intellectually?
We seem to know that the me is the danger,no? But this knowledge doesn’t act.
As you act when you see real danger.
How come? Why do we not act? I am not looking for an answer, believe it or not!
There is this imminent danger which threaten us as a human species, which entire life is at stake.
I can listen to K and I do and he give me answers, but i seem to realise more and more that these answers are his answerds, if you know where i am heading at.
I have to come up with answers, we all have to come up with answers.
You answered your own question when you wrote, “We seem to know that the me is the danger”.
Seeming to know or see is not actually knowing or seeing…it’s believing, assuming, supposing, surmising, etc., which is what we do instead of acknowledging what we really don’t know.
I have to come up with answers, we all have to come up with answers.
No. I don’t “have to come up with answers” because the conditioned brain is full of answers, most of which support the illusion that I am the arbiter of truth and I know what to do.
Answers to replace the answers the brain is already ‘stuffed’ with? New better conclusions? Isn’t that the way thought continues its activity?
Through the ‘fear’ of a still, silent, empty mind? A mind that is no longer attached to anything?K’s pointing to the necessity of a “mutation of the brain cells” makes sense in this regard. Just a choice less awareness of what is actually happening.
What I wanted to make clear about giving answers, and i repeat, K has given us questions and answers , but these were his
Questions and answers.
For me it is necessary that I put myself questions so that the answers are my answers and not from someone else.
If you do not want to give answers that is allright, but i think you do it all the time.
Don’t you?
If you want to find your own answers, don’t publish your questions. Keep them to yourself until/if an answer arises, then decide whether you want to publish your answer.
Oh! Now I see!
Let me ask myself a simple question: why do I want an answer? Is it because we are so used to getting an answer on every question that has been put since childhood, so that it has become part of our conditioning to have an answer? You see I put a question mark here, because i do not want to make statements of it.
Instead it is an invitation to explore these things as human beings that (and I may still hope, if you let me, are interested in the teachings.)
If you cannot agree or feel attacked in some way, plz forget about it and go on with your life.
God still blesses you (by manner of speaking).
You’re hung up on the notion that answers are not what questions seek, and you need to find out why. Maybe it bothers you that your questions have answers that you could have arrived at yourself if you hadn’t believed that you must ponder them with others. I don’t know. You’ll have to ask yourself and examine your own answers, because, like it or not, they will arise.
No ,
not at all.
I just wonder why we are so attached (maybe this is not the right word but i m at a loss for another) to answers? I gave you an answer but as it didn’t satisfy you at all.
Instead you play the ball back (ping-pong)
So, for the sake of the inquiry, may i rephrase my question: does the right question exist and if so why do we not or can we not put it?
Hopefully you won’t mind if i answer my question. After all, you may or may not agree with it and for sure any comment is also welcome.
The answer is yes . And if you need proof of it : children do it all the time.
Have we lost this innocence?
Because our thinking is the fusion of practical and psychological thought we are confused, so the “right question” may be, Can a confused brain know what the right question is?
You suggest that a child might pose the right question because the young brain is not as confused as the older brain, and that may be, but can I, the confused brain, ever know with certainty what is not self-evident or demonstrable?
How long does it take for the innocent brain of a child to be as corrupt and confused as the adults it lives with? Or are children born with a gene that predisposes them to confusion? Are these “right questions”? How would I, the confused brain know since I am structurally wrong?
When you first used the K-phrase “right question”, I said I never give it a thought because it would be presumptuous to think I would know the right question when I heard it. What makes you think you will know when a question is “right”?
Indeed, before even thinking about putting the right question we must consider what it means to be confused znd examine the question that you put : can a confused brain see its own confusion,?
What is yor answer on this? You seem to suggest by adking this suestion that it cann’t.
Are we sure about it? What makes us sure?
How on earth can we know this. We might even not know that the brain is confused.
Ofcourse we can see the outcome of our actions, which indicate that there is sthg wrong with us , hence the structure of our society, no?
But this is a logical, sane, rational view and to be honest this view is just an intellectual understanding, no?
We need more, no? Plz share me your thoughts on this so that we might continue our inquiry and start with a clean sheet.
Good day,
Joost
Sorry for the typing faults. Hope you can read it properly.
Confusion can’t be sure about anything that isn’t empirical, i.e., self-evident or demonstrable. We have the scientific method because we know how biased and distorted our perception is due to the incoherence caused by the fusion of practical and psychological thinking. This much is self-evident when you’re aware of your thoughts and reactions.
We might even not know that the brain is confused.
The only way to find out is to be aware of your every thought and reaction. This is what it means to be “serious”.
Ofcourse we can see the outcome of our actions, which indicate that there is sthg wrong with us , hence the structure of our society, no? But this is a logical, sane, rational view and to be honest this view is just an intellectual understanding, no?
We know something is wrong with us, and if we’re satisfied with an “intellectual understanding” of what it is, we’re not serious enough to find out.
We need more, no? Plz share me your thoughts on this so that we might continue our inquiry and start with a clean sheet.
I think I’ve done that, but the only thing I can be sure of is that I can be mistaken.
So… there is still ground for further investigation, because there is still doubt.
Do we doubt everything? What is doubt? Why do we doubt?aski[quote=“Inquiry, post:98, topic:2176, full:true”]
Confusion can’t be sure about anything that isn’t empirical, i.e., self-evident or demonstrable. We have the scientific method because we know how biased and distorted our perception is due to the incoherence caused by the fusion of practical and psychological thinking. This much is self-evident when you’re aware of your thoughts and reactions.
We might even not know that the brain is confused.
The only way to find out is to be aware of your every thought and reaction. This is what it means to be “serious”.
Ofcourse we can see the outcome of our actions, which indicate that there is sthg wrong with us , hence the structure of our society, no? But this is a logical, sane, rational view and to be honest this view is just an intellectual understanding, no?
We know something is wrong with us, and if we’re satisfied with an “intellectual understanding” of what it is, we’re not serious enough to find out.
We need more, no? Plz share me your thoughts on this so that we might continue our inquiry and start with a clean sheet.
I think I’ve done that, but the only thing I can be sure of is that I can be mistaken.
[/quote]
There seems to be some techniczl problem here.
I will try to respond later …
Might I refer to facts by asking what a fact is? The literal meaning comes from L. “factum” , what is made, what is done, what is performed and also a deed.
Surely there is no doubt about what a fact is; It is what it is, no less, no more. If you are still discussing about it, it isn’t a fact any longer (it might become an opinion about a fact).
So , why does doubt come into being? Is it because we cannot live with just the bare facts, with what is? Why cann’t we? Are we afraid of seeing what we are? And inviting fear into our lifes.
We know , or seem to know, that fear isn’t a good thing to live with. I mean we all know the outcome of fear, which is the fundament of our society. THis society is built on fear and this is also a fact.
So, unless this fear is present, you might do or say whatever you like
you are still in its grip.
And yes, I do ask myself : am I free from fear and to be honest I don’ know. I can only feel strongly what the outcome is , what it does, but I cannot say : I am free from fear, and maybe this isn’t worth mentioning also.
The “bare facts” we can’t abide without distorting, denying, disputing, or dismissing, are those facts which don’t support our illusions. All other facts we can face the naked truth of because they don’t threaten our illusions. As I’ve said, we are the fusion of practical thinking and psychological thinking; we are confused. Or as Bohm put it, our thinking is incoherent.
I do ask myself : am I free from fear and to be honest I don’ know. I can only feel strongly what the outcome is , what it does, but I cannot say : I am free from fear, and maybe this isn’t worth mentioning also.
So which is it? Are you aware of the underlying fear that sustains your incoherent thinking or not?