What’s the difference? You talked about facts. K talks about facts. Are you mimicking K? Of course you’ll say, ‘No!’ but you don’t even give the other chap the benefit of the doubt.
Why are they tacit? Why not bring them out into the open?
It’s a thought-feeling. More feeling than thought.
You can’t deny facts, it has nothing to do with K or X or Y or Z. It is a fact that me and you respond to each other’s writings.
One is barely aware of them, and some are unconscious
Thanks Paul for sharing this. I dont want to start up conversing back and forth, at the moment, but came back to share a little more, I feel you deserve it, a better explanation to why I said I am losing interest and why I find this forum limited.
I respect your views Paul and you are a serious, sincere person (also you seem like a genuinely nice sincere guy) interested in exploring Krishnamurtis teachings and also have an interest in dialogue. So we have that in common, the same interest.
But I have found that there are actually few I care to converse with about the teachings or have a dialogue with. I lose interest quickly. Unless the other participant/s have the same interest, intensity, and a similar understanding. Some might have the interest and intensity but we still cannot converse unless we have some similar understanding or approach or something.
I wavered back and forth if I should write about what I perceived about you, as Inquiry first pointed out, and I decided finally to jump in, share that I saw the same things he saw. It was said out of care and affection for you, in case it was a blind spot and you wanted to see it, and possibly change it. I did not want or expect it to turn into a whole conversation or thread.
So when you suggested we start a new thread to discuss this, I was hesitant, reluctant, not really wanting to do that. I also said I might lose interest quickly (I know myself and my waning interests) and also warned that some might come in and say things about you too, that might not be so flattering.
So when that other participant said this thread is “infantile” it was actually Pauls idea to start it, to start one, I just took the initiative and named it, whether it is an appropriate name or not, I dont know.
So anyways, we started conversing and I put my energy into it and wrote what I felt was important and on topic. We did a few back and forths and then I felt we moved away from the original topic and what we were planning to look into, namely you. I had no problem that it became more general and impersonal, but even then I still felt lost as how to communicate or respond to your posts. So in the end, I decided it is best to just move on and wish you well.
And I still find the forum limited, our style of communication limited. I find zoom or in person dialogues more conducive to real communication. But even there, there is only a small number of people I am interested in hearing or conversing with. I have seen Krishnamurti himself, bored at many dialogues where the participants were not at the same level, intensity, interest, etc as him. And that is why he liked David Bohm so much and enjoyed discussing with him, for he was one of the few that interested Krishnamurti.
So just wanted to write all of this and make sure Paul did not take any of this personally, personal and that I find only him limited. It is nothing like that. He has a lot to offer to many on here and in the zoom dialogues. His style of writing and approach is just not for me. But I will stay open and maybe in the future, we will try again or your approach will speak more to me then.
But how do you know when someone is mimicking K? That is the question. What makes this mimicking a fact and not just an opinion?
But what is behind or within the feeling that makes one say, ‘I am connected to this person’? Why is one connected to X and not to Y? What is the essence of any connection to another human being?
What are our terms and conditions, yours and mine? Surely we are aware of them. You seem to have it very clear on your side with all this ‘mimicking K’ business.
Don’t you find it sad that we even have to consider how we approach one another? We are both here. No approach is necessary. I do wonder what we’re all playing at. Perhaps the issue is more about avoiding K than mimicking him.
There is sadness on my end, yes. I find this whole thing sad that we cannot find a way to communicate with each other. Maybe it is all on my end, maybe yours, or maybe a combination. But yes, it is sad.
I also find it sad that I shared from my heart, with feeling and you just snipped a small part to respond to instead of responding to the whole message which was coming from the heart.
And just to be clear here, due to limitation of words on a screen, I feel nothing but respect for you Paul, and hope nothing I said hurt you in any way, in our correspondence.
And in this post I am just sharing how I feel, what came up for me after writing my heartfelt post to you and reading your reply (I hope it is okay to share ones feelings on a K forum, I know some K folks frown upon feelings)
Do we actually ever need to find a way to communicate with another human being? While we are looking for the right or the best way, we are avoiding right now what is happening, which is our sadness and isolation. This is universal. It isn’t mine or yours. But the right way to communicate is always very personal, isn’t it? And it is always in the distance, either as a memory of something wonderful that once happened or as a dream of what may occur in the future. So the right way is an idea. The truth or the fact of the matter is that we have very little to say to one another. We can manufacture a thousand things to say in order to cover up the uncomfortable awareness of our own emptiness, but the fact remains that this emptiness is our universal condition.
Can we explore this together without making of it something personal? The personal approach must always be limited by what we want from it, which may be the desire to move from sadness to bliss, from isolation to connection, or from confusion to clarity.
There is no whole message. Our messages to one another are fragments only. So in the fragment is the whole. Sadness does not come from the heart. What comes from the heart, there are no words for.
I am not interested in respect. This too is limited. It has its opposite, which is disrespect. Can we love one another so that we never again have to talk about being hurt? This to me makes far greater sense.
I don’t know what I feel. It changes from moment to moment. Sometimes I feel I am mimicking K; and sometimes I feel I have gone too far with it. And then something happens which makes one realise that one hasn’t gone far enough.
Surely it is an opinion. You can’t imitate truth. It is like pretending to be honest. I think our problem is when someone makes a black or white statement. A static statement in a world that is always moving , changing and is full of variety.
No, sorry, you are missing the question. How do you know for a fact that the other person is mimicking K? What is your evidence for it apart from just your opinion? Can you get to the fact?
Shared history. Familiarity. Interaction.
Which means we are connected by an intermediate factor. Is there any connection without that?
Beautiful, very insightful.
Thanks for your honesty here. I think this is a good place to leave it at the moment.
I don’t know, but my gut feeling is yes.
Paul,
Everything you post is a product of thought (without any sign of intelligence), hence it is all mimicking. This usage of that kind of thought itself is mimicry, since there is also a usage of terms and phrases which K used, without owning the truth of what those words even point to. The moment you use a word which you yourself do not own as a living truth, a living discovery for you, it is all mimicry. Your belief in this kind of action is evidence itself of having succumbed to second-hand K conditioning. It has become your inner authority, as it is your modus operandi!
Even all the conclusions you have arrived at, such as in your latest editorial - which was emailed to everyone (!!!), you concluded that insight is a reaction (I!!! - another patently false conclusion), showing no intelligence whatsoever, and is therefore a product of thought, solely. When someone spins words, as you do, even to the point of mimicking “dialogue” and getting others to participate with you in this effort, that action itself is mimicry, like that of a small child who just plays with words.