Paul, thanks for sharing but I am losing interest in trying to converse with you. I think I am going to give it a break.
I lose interest quickly in trying to discuss on a written forum, it is just too limited for me. But please carry on with anyone who is still interested in what was written in this thread… Take care
I find Paul to be a persistent thinker. He says something and sticks to it without any flexibility. The fact is that nothing in this mad world is definite except death.
Don’t forget about birth…and what happens in between!..
Details, details.
We all know what happens in between. Constant confusion.
What is a relationship? What makes what we have now a relationship? Is there within it any trace of dependency, attachment, competitiveness, jealousy, envy, fear? Isn’t this how we know that we are in a relationship with another? If all of that dies away, does the relationship die with it?
This is the central fact of human existence: living and dying go together.
Is there anyone else to converse with here except ourselves? This is a serious question. And this is what makes the written forum so interesting because of the absence of all other distractions. The body language is absent, the glances, the gestures, the eye contact - none of that exists here. So who is talking to whom? Are we two separate brains, two distinct fragments of human consciousness? Or there is the eternal opportunity of a vast consciousness opening up unto itself. Therefore, I suspect this written forum is actually the key to the depths of human dialogue. Maybe I am wrong; I have never thought of it this way before. But I would certainly hesitate before I said it was all too limited. No living thing is ever limited except by its own desires.
Paul,
It wouldn’t really matter what kind of forum - written, spoken, video, etc. as long as one is serious, really serious. However, having said this, the entire purpose of being here would be to discover reality for oneself, alone. A living discovery. Dependence on another would hamper such a discovery, which brings up the entire issue for those who are unaware (or choose to ignore that awareness) that belief in the idea of “helping” “the other” is also something that will also hamper/hinder any such discovery. Thought can never be “the key” to open the door to reality.
While K “helped”, it was only because he reached out from a field of not-knowing, out of freedom. Unless one is speaking from that field, any attempt to dialogue with another, would only result in what the topic of this thread suggested - mimicking. It is only from that field of not-knowning that one might truly “help” “the other” (psychologically speaking), but all that K could do was just point out that the door to freedom was just oneself, a journey that one takes alone. So either one begins that journey alone or one doesn’t.
On the other hand, there is the incredible fact that reality must choose you. All other efforts are meaningless, futile, and rightfully suspect.
Connection.
Is it all possible to approach this question negatively - instead of supplying some or any answer? In other words, what is not relationship?
We have a strong image of our status and position. This might be why dialogue sometimes seems like a competitive sport - necessarily so if we are engaging from who I am, and what I want.
However, every time we read the words on the screen, is an opportunity to let go of my status and position, and engage with what is being said, and possibly even consider the person saying it.
Wanting to find a new way of living is no special status at all. My desires do not grant me immunity from participating in harm. Do no harm is the rule.
My theory of dialogue is an old one : let go of what I want and who I am, and engage without fear in what is being said.
For example, if you have been paying attention to all that has been said in this thread, you should know that you have been participating in a painful relationship - whether by lack of clarity or whatever.
It would be great if you could address this fully - it does relate to concepts like compassion, respect - maybe even bullying or obsessive behaviour.
There you go mimicking K. You see when you mimic K it is not yours. It is merely intellectual , you haven’t done it.
Yes, but how do we realise that we are connected? Is it because we are attached to one another? Is there an element of dependency, fear, suspicion in this attachment?
So you have been hurt - is this right?
So living and dying don’t go together - is this what you are saying? Otherwise, your own comment about death also comes under scrutiny: ‘the fact is that nothing in this mad world is definite except death.’ Were you mimicking K when you said this? Or we are just exploring this together, finding out what we can see.
But we are wondering if there is even a oneself. There are a lot of people talking to each other, interacting, engaging, enquiring. That part is clear. But who is the oneself? Is it a someone who is separate from all the rest of the someones?
Are you asking or telling? If you’re telling, i.e. you’re sure of the ‘correct’ answer, then it would be better for me (for our dialogue) if you said that clearly. I’m not fond of leading questions, usually they trigger a negative reaction for me, a reflex-like loss of trust.
You might be asking from a place of not-knowing, but it seems you’re asking in a way that seeks to nudge me in what you feel is the right direction.
Do you mean you never heard of death ! It is in the news,it is in your neighborhood,it is in the mortuary. What k talks about is psychological.
The tacit terms and conditions under which one interacts with another.
I am asking. How do you know that you are connected to anyone? Take someone whom you know.