Lives Matter Movement!

[voyager]

I’d like to make some important clarifications here which could be useful for understanding this topic. They might seem obvious for some of you, but not so for others.

I’ve never met people who wondered or explored what K. meant with “thought”. As with several other words, his use of this word is not according to the meaning of the dictionary or the commonly accepted meaning.

One dictionary I consulted gives the following definitions:

• the product of mental activity: a book on early Greek thought.
• a single act or product of thinking; idea or notion: to collect one’s thoughts.
• the act or process of thinking; mental activity; reflection: He was deep in thought and didn’t hear me when I came in.
• intention, design, or purpose.

Commonly we call “thought” the mental activity of creating and confronting ideas, reflecting, pondering, assessing, planning, and of course remembering.

Apparently that activity seems not responsible for violence, and that explains why innumerable philosophers and thinkers never blamed thought for violence. It’s true, as K. said, that ideas lead to conflicts and wars but one can say that it’s not the idea itself which prompts a violent action but only the associated emotions. So the response or the reaction to an idea like “nation” or “black lives matter” can vary from person to person according to his/her emotional charge. Not all the people are dragged to a violent emotion and so driven to violent action.

K. made a synthesis of all that stating that thought and emotions are the same thing or come from the same field. And this is not a notion commonly accepted.

K. often stressed the necessity to tackle life and its problems in a simple way so he strived to stay simple in his speeches. For him thought was simply the response of memory, of the past. Which obviously is true, yet it does not coincide with what we think thought is. Speaking of thought he included in it all those functions and activities that science attributes to the nervous system (which is much more than the brain). The nervous system is a complex recording machine and software creator. When we learn a skill, like talking, we accumulate and record a huge amount of information which then will allow us to speak. In practice all our actions are regulated by memory or better by this past recording. But most of those recordings and their action are unconscious while we usually refer to thought as something we do consciously. So K.’s definition is a simplification and a useful one. Useful because once we understand how to switch from the past to the present or the actual, our problems are solved without the necessity to delve into the complexities of thought/nervous system.

But if we stick to the notion that “thought” is responsible for the violence we see in the world, without realizing that in the word “thought” we must include a whole variety of automatic responses like emotions, protective reactions deeply embedded in the lower and oldest area of our nervous system, then our exploration or reflections will be useless. And by the way this whole variety of responses is what we call “the self”.

[macdougdoug]

The problem comes from mistaking our thoughts for reality.
The problem comes from mistaking our reality for reality as it is.

[voyager]

@macdougdoug

The problem comes from mistaking our thoughts for reality.

Is that a slogan or what?
It isn’t of any use to state something without explaining why it’s so and how you have come to that conclusion. If you don’t do that then it may appear like “Also sprake Zaraturstra”.

[macdougdoug]

@WimOpdam

The bottom line is that the living does not need man, but man needs the living.

At the moment, millions of species are depending on us for their futur survival.
Granted, thats not all life - but a lot of life is dependant on us slowing global warming and the destruction of ecosystems, and the acidification of the oceans.

If humanity can do as well as we did with CFCs and the ozone layer, then our civilisation will probably survive and planet Earth will probably never see another ice age.

We have our hands on the steering wheel of this planet - the only question is can we decide together which way to steer.

Petrol/coal/gas is more difficult to eradicate than CFCs - and there is agrowing number joining the ranks of the Conspirationists - which could mean that society has less power to act together (as trust is the base of society)

[macdougdoug]

@voyager

@macdougdoug

The problem comes from mistaking our thoughts for reality.

Is that a slogan or what?
It isn’t of any use to state something without explaining why it’s so

It seems simple to me.
For example : what you now think about me - does it seem real to you?
And does this belief not affect our interactions now in the real world?

[voyager]

@macdougdoug

For example : what you now think about me - does it seem real to you?

This could be an interesting but separate line of discussion. My post, to which you responded, dealt with the affirmation someone had made that “thought is responsible for murder”.

Suppose I am one activist of the black/blue lives matter. I come to you and tell you: you have murdered one of us so now I’ll murder you. Your answer “the problem comes from mistaking your thoughs for reality” will make him understand his error? When emotions are at stakes no reasoning will be of any help.

[voyager]

@macdougdoug

And does this belief not affect our interactions now in the real world?

That could be true in the real world. Relationships are wasted by preconcemptions.
But is this forum the real world? I mean can we assimilate the relationship we have here with that we can have in the real world, i. e. being physically present?

The kind of communication we may have here is very limited, so one is bound to base our interaction on the type/kind of speech, answers, explanations, reasoning, one makes. Of course this may lead to misunderstanding but the responsibility is not entirely to the listener but also to the speaker. I am responsible of what I say and of all the implications that may have. If you say that the sea is yellow and I understand that the sea is yellow, that’s is not my fault.

[Philip]

@voyager

The self is a creation of thought but we live well without the ego while we cannot live without thinking. To blame thought for the violence may lead to the wrong assumption that we need to eliminate thought (as some people believe), while the real villain is the process of the self. K. and a few others showed us that we can use happily and efficiently thought without the presence of the ego. Denying the reality of the self means depriving us of this possibility.

@voyager

K. made a synthesis of all that stating that thought and emotions are the same thing or come from the same field. And this is not a notion commonly accepted.

@voyager

For him thought was simply the response of memory, of the past.

@voyager

So K.’s definition is a simplification and a useful one. Useful because once we understand how to switch from the past to the present or the actual, our problems are solved without the necessity to delve into the complexities of thought/nervous system.

@voyager

But if we stick to the notion that “thought” is responsible for the violence we see in the world, without realizing that in the word “thought” we must include a whole variety of automatic responses like emotions, protective reactions deeply embedded in the lower and oldest area of our nervous system, then our exploration or reflections will be useless. And by the way this whole variety of responses is what we call “the self”.

I am only highlighting parts of Voyager’s replies to aid me in my own response, not to focus or pull things out of context. A complete reading of anyone’s statement seems necessary in making a “holistic” response that penetrates to the heart of what is being said.

Thanks for your insight into thinking voyager, as far as I can tell you bring up several important points, most of which require the silent intensity of the “mind,” in order to fully see the facts you bring up. Yes, one can’t make the division between “good vs bad” when it comes to thinking. Such a “line of thought” leads to “reward and punishment,” to trying to “create” a self that is “perfect.” To not expand or reword too much, the way to “operate” without the idea of ourselves, without our ego, seems to be as simple as being aware of the nature of thought. To see the “movement” of thought, as one can see the movement of branches in the wind. This is still quite new for me, but is where my inquiry has lead thus far.

As you point out, to understand violence, one must not accept what anyone has said about thought and emotion, and look into whether their interaction is part of the same movement, or “field”. Seeing that endless analyzing is part of some goal to “solve our problems” or “become something,” we must look at it as it is “now”. So, our inquiry must start from our idea of the past, and “switch” to actual emotions that arise. As you point out, this looking is still judged by the self. “The Way of Intelligence” chapter 6 (part 1 seminar Rishi Valley 2/1/80), points at the “switching” from thought and emotion, to asking “Is there a perception which is not of time?” I hope it’s ok to post the link:

Chapter 6 - Part 1 - Seminar, Rishi Valley - 1st February 1980 -...

When one is “stuck,” as K puts it at the end of the excerpt, then is it possible to see the workings of thought/emotion/wanting, and also allow for some sort of perception “outside” our brain? This “seeing” might include all the layers of the nervous system, as voyager has kindly brought the possibility of thought not being tied exclusively to our brain. I’m trying so very hard not to “see what I want to see,” but feel this is an important matter to discuss. It also has relevance to seeing that we are all “linked” through the process of the self (dividing “reality” into “fragments”). This also seems an integral part to the issue of violence in all aspects of society.

[voyager]

Thank you Philip for your answer and quotations (which I have never read before). Both are very long and I have no time to read the second now and for digesting all the points you included in your answer and to reply decently now. But perhaps there is no need of replying… (

[Dominic]

@voyager

But if we stick to the notion that “thought” is responsible for the violence we see in the world, without realizing that in the word “thought” we must include a whole variety of automatic responses like emotions, protective reactions deeply embedded in the lower and oldest area of our nervous system, then our exploration or reflections will be useless. And by the way this whole variety of responses is what we call “the self”.

One can tentatively delineate two forms of physical violence; cold-blooded murder which uses thought, embodied by the notion in English law as malice aforethought, and explosive emotion, or so-called mental illness, with a thing like crime passionnel found in French law.

In all these instances a notion self/other is in play, and quite often fear or paranoia, or hate, or another emotion such as anger, or a combination. But the reality engendered by and exacerbated by the division self/other always appears present.

So one may need to look for those aspects of thought able to bring about self/other, and then sustain and accentuate it, as in othering, which is to say, not one of us.

[voyager]

@Dominic

So one may need to look for those aspects of thought able to bring about self/other, and then sustain and accentuate it, as in othering, which is to say, not one of us.

Sorry Dominic, but I really don’t get this. There are some expressions I’m not familiar with, like “self/other” and “othering”. Would you be so kind and patient to explain them to me?

[Dominic]

@voyager

Sorry Dominic, but I really don’t get this. There are some expressions I’m not familiar with, like “self/other” and “othering”. Would you be so kind and patient to explain them to me?

Sorry, yes. Is it not the case whenever there is a sense self, there is an accompanying sense of other; that is another entity, who is not just experienced as physically separate, but who is also psychologically outside or other than me. So the same process which makes for self, also makes for other than self. Then it can also be seen in terrible events such as the Holocaust, Rwanda and most recently the Rohingya people, that this process of scapegoating whole groups of people who are seen as other than a dominant group, has its source in the establishment of other than me, which can function as the seed. This is another reason why self is to be considered dangerous. The response to events like these can be to talk about the need for compassion, and for empathy, but empathy seems a poor substitute for seeing there is no actual other than myself.

Self is also fluid in the sense self can just be me, myself, or it can be the group, the nation, or the racial group, or the human race, which is human consciousness. Related to this is the act of identification self can be, which is an aspect if its being, which means identification with group, nation or tribe, and at every stage a sense of other than that is created, which can then be deprived of the same value or quality as that self.

[voyager]

@Dominic

Related to this is the act of identification self can be, which is an aspect if its being, which means identification with group, nation or tribe, and at every stage a sense of other than that is created, which can then be deprived of the same value or quality as that self.

Perfect! Thank you for the explanation, now it’s all clear.

[Jess]

I would suggest that the spine is as much to the body as the self is to the psyche. If you have a sane spine your body will get along better, so if your self is sane you’ll be a balanced human being. To be selfless doesn’t mean there is no self, it means your actions aren’t prompted by a centre in order to just please that centre. It doesn’t matter whether you’re black or white, the spine is there and so is the self, both need to be sane.

[macdougdoug]

I wonder if being at least slightly neurotic isn’t a fundamental part of the self. In that it needs constant security and progress and definite conclusions.
The best we can do as “unawakened” idiots is to avoid doing harm as much as we are able.
That starts with acknowledging that my conclusions are most probably subjective, one sided, constructs of my own beliefs.
And thus at least avoid attacking others.
Freedom from the Known may simply mean : not being a slave to the Known

[Huguette]

@voyager

I’ve discussed with an American supporter of “Black lives matter” in a different forum and I told him, you don’t want justice you want revenge …
I think that the basic problem with black people in America is that they cannot identify themselves with a country which was created by the whites.

K has asserted that killing is always an unintelligent action. That may or may not be so, and I’m not calling for or justifying insurrection, but I don’t feel I can judge insurrection - even including killing - when circumstances are dire, brutal and unrelenting. Such insurrections by “the wretched of the earth” (Frantz Fanon’s phrase) are not the problem faced by humanity. To paraphrase something Martin Luther King said, I think it is a cruel irony to tell those who are cornered and continually brutalized to act with compassion and without division when they and their children are being slaughtered and they have nowhere to hide and no means to escape. (“It’s all right to tell a man to lift himself by his own bootstraps, but it is cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps” - MLK).

There have been uprisings, revolts, rebellions and attempts to flee brutal oppression throughout history including the present time — Spartacus, Nat Turner, Moses fleeing Egypt, the Masada and Warsaw Ghetto uprisings, the French and other revolutions, abused wives, husbands and children who kill their abusers and tormentors, and so on. In such circumstances, in the moment and heat of fear and anger, people act without seeing themselves as black, white, Egyptian, American, male, female, child, adult. They act to end the inner turmoil and external threats they feel, that any of us would feel in similar circumstances, as I see it.

When we judge and analyze “their problem” from a psychological distance, we turn “them” (and “us”) into abstractions, don’t we? Isn’t it another avoidance of what lies within one’s own heart and mind? The fact of psychological division remains within us and THAT must still be what is looked at and understood, as I see it. I could be wrong.

[voyager]

@Huguette

When we judge and analyze “their problem” from a psychological distance, we turn “them” (and “us”) into abstractions, don’t we?

No. Full stop.
I was not talking of abstractions or treating people as abstractions. On the contrary when I say: “you want revenge” I am delving into the very core of humans of which I feel part. I didn’t talk about compassion with that supporter, that would have been too naive or -as you pointed out- unfair. I only told him that any political or violent revolution (or insurrection) has never brought about a juster society or have eliminated exploitation, discrimination and injustice. This is a fact not an abstraction. (By the way K. was often criticised for being too abstract).

“They act to end the inner turmoil and external threats they feel, that any of us would feel in similar circumstances, as I see.”

Yes, you are saying that they are reacting emotionally, and do emotions have ever brought about a better society? Look at all the famous and documented revolutions, all prompted by a just cause and by inner turmoil which we feel justifies our violence or revenge. Did they created a better society? A better man?

After the turmoil is gone all that remains are the rubbles and the corpses, and everything goes on like before. Only we have become more hypocritical.

I think that there are more intelligent and peaceful way to change the society in which we live than plander shops or burn cars (let aside killing men).

[Dominic]

@voyager

@Huguette

When we judge and analyze “their problem” from a psychological distance, we turn “them” (and “us”) into abstractions, don’t we?

No. Full stop.
I was not talking of abstractions or treating people as abstractions. On the contrary when I say: “you want revenge” I am delving into the very core of humans of which I feel part.

“They act to end the inner turmoil and external threats they feel, that any of us would feel in similar circumstances, as I see.

I think that there are more intelligent and peaceful way to change the society in which we live than plander shops or burn cars (let aside killing men)

Huguette, voyager

Another aspect of this is identification as previously mentioned, but there is my identifying with my colour, my group, and then acting from there, but there is also my being identified because of my colour by another, even when I do not, so it’s not anything I can get out of the way of. So this comes down to self defence, and whether as self I am ever justified in doing that, or by being self, I am to consider I bring things on myself because of that, which is a response some are, which is highly dubious as thoughts go. But there is a question about what is really going on, and what power we are as minds and as beings, and what the action called for is.

[voyager]

P.S.
It may appear that my discourse was all against the black lives matter movement. Actually my post was partial. I should have said that in my view all conflicting parties are on the wrong track.

Are you American Huguette?

I’m Italian, a disastrous country from many points of view and surely there is violence here too like in all countries of this world. But judging from what I read in the papers America seems the Nobel prize for violence. If I am correct it’s the only country in the world where you can buy arms without a licence or permission. You are still playing at cowboys and indians… “It’s my constitutional right to possess a gun!” and that closes the matter.

The constitution is just a mirror of the people, isn’t it?

And the police… they do appalling things which are incompatible with a democratic society. Why you have tolerated that for all this time?

I have met many americans in my youth and they were mostly nice people. Then in 1971 I went to N.Y. for a holiday. I needed a street information and tried to ask it to passersby… nobody stopped. I have been to many countries but nowhere I’ve met people who didn’t stop to give me a piece of information. After several attempts I gave up. Then I finally saw a policeman. Oh! at last! Policemen are so kind and willing to give information to tourists everywhere in the world. So I repeated my requesto to him… he started to yell like a madman. Thi only thing I could understand was: “get away”. Welcome to America!

[voyager]

@Dominic

what power we are as minds and as beings, and what the action called for is.

Human mind is very powerful, for the right or for the wrong. If you really are “in the right” (I don’t know if that expression exists in English) and put together the intelligence, resources, energies and determination of all your fellow men, nobody, no powers can stop you.