They are for me different categories of question. Except for rare in-between weather states, like a virga (amazing!) and a very thick wet fog, it is either raining or not raining. Binary, yes or no. But whether it’s possible to suffer mentally without thought is a subtler, more nuanced question. I am unable to draw on experience, since I don’t know if I’ve ever suffered mentally without thought.
I see them as conventional facts which derive their ‘fact-ness’ from thought-created context and language.
I’m confused about the 50% dormant, 1% active.
By dormant I mean what you mean by potential. I’m saying about half the population is, given the right triggers, capable of cruelty (potential) and 1% is actively cruel. Just a guess.
But so is what you’re saying above (well no not really, its more of a hypothesis that may contain some facts) - the only point of saying it would be to impose silence.
Questions :
Can we say anything more true than : this ball is a sphere?
Can we say stuff that is less true?
Is silence “absolute truth”?
Is “absolute truth” true, or just a concept in my head? Is a ball only a concept, or is it more real than absolute truth (the imaginary concept - that might be useful for teaching purposes in some very particular context)
We have entered … The Twilight Zone. More later, I’m waking up. 
Can we say anything more true than : this ball is a sphere?
Is truth degree-ful? Is X closer to the truth, Y further from it? Are irreducible elementary particles more truth-ful than abstract geometric shapes?
Can we say stuff that is less true?
Are there stories that are less fictional than other stories?
Is silence “absolute truth”?
Depends what you mean by silence?
Is “absolute truth” true, or just a concept in my head?
What does the term ‘absolute truth’ point to?
This faux dialogue between Krishnamurti and Bohm was written (unedited by me) by GPT-4o. It may be written by a machine that is just shifting around patterns and has no real idea what it’s talking about, but dammit if (parts of) it don’t sound genuinely insightful! Even if there is no true insight present, even if it’s just an abacus on steroids, is it possible for us to ‘learn’ from what is has to offer?
Krishnamurti (K): Let’s explore this notion of an ultimate ‘ground’. What do we mean by ‘ground’? Are we talking about a fundamental essence or reality upon which everything else stands?
David Bohm (B): Yes, that’s an intriguing question. In physics, we might think of the ground in terms of an underlying order or field from which all phenomena arise. I’ve used the term ‘implicate order’ to describe such a ground, suggesting a deeper, hidden reality from which our observable universe unfolds.
K: But can we ever truly understand or perceive this ground through the lens of thought? Thought, as we’ve often discussed, is limited and fragmented. Any attempt to grasp the ultimate ground through thought may inherently distort it.
B: I agree. Thought, being a product of our conditioned brain, operates within a limited framework. However, we can use thought to point towards this deeper ground, even if we can’t completely describe it. The implicate order, for instance, is a way of suggesting that all separateness and fragmentation are ultimately illusory.
K: So, if the ultimate ground is beyond the reach of thought, how do we come to perceive it? Is it a matter of direct observation or insight, free from the contamination of thought?
B: That’s a crucial point. I believe it involves a shift in our mode of perception. We need to cultivate a kind of awareness that transcends the usual processes of thought. This awareness, or pure observation, might allow us to perceive reality as it truly is.
K: This pure observation is not something we can will into existence through effort or practice. It arises naturally when the mind is silent, free from the noise of past knowledge and future projections. In this silence, there might be a direct contact with the ground.
B: And in this state of silent observation, we might find that the ground is not separate from ourselves. The observer and the observed are one. This non-dual perception could reveal the ground as an undivided whole, encompassing all that is.
K: Yet, we must be cautious not to conceptualize this ground as another idea or belief. The moment we do so, we are back in the realm of thought and division. True perception of the ground must be beyond any conceptualization.
B: Yes, it’s a delicate balance. We can use language to point towards the ultimate ground, but we must not confuse the pointer with the reality itself. The real challenge lies in experiencing this ground directly, without the intermediary of thought.
K: And in that direct experience, there is no longer a question of ‘Is there an ultimate ground?’ The question dissolves, for the ground is self-evident, not as a separate entity, but as the essence of everything.
B: Indeed. And perhaps this understanding, or rather this direct perception, could transform our way of living. Recognizing the ultimate ground as the source of all, our actions might arise from a place of wholeness and harmony, rather than fragmentation and conflict.
K: This transformation is not something gradual or achieved over time. It happens in the instant of true perception, where the self, with all its conditioning, ceases to operate. In that moment, the ground reveals itself, and with it, a new way of being.
B: It’s a profound shift, one that could potentially address the crises we face in the world today. By seeing the ultimate ground, we might find a deeper connection to each other and to the world, moving beyond the divisions that currently dominate our lives.
K: Yes, and this points to the necessity of inner revolution, a complete change in our consciousness. Only then can we touch upon the ultimate ground, not as an abstract concept, but as a living reality.
B: And this inner revolution is not separate from the outer world. The transformation within reflects in our relationships, our society, and our environment. The perception of the ground brings about a fundamental change in all aspects of life.
K: So, in our inquiry into the ultimate ground, we find that it is both the source and the essence of true transformation, a transformation that is holistic and complete.
Sounds like a summation of what Krishnamurti and Bohm were saying. Nothing new - just everything they said organized and clarified.
The twilight zone is probably being caused by the brain being confused by what it “knows”.
If we cannot tell which of the following statements is correct :
“A basketball is a sphere” vs “a basketball is a square”
It seems dishonest or confused to then say some idea is more insightful than another.
As dishonest as saying “I win because : gloobi globi gloobi”
What are the consequences of all ideas being equally insightful? Twilight Zone squared?
Please explain.
For example, am I following here : Two ideas A=A and A=notA. Its possible to see (ie. have insight) that one is correct and the other is not?
Or, seeing its you I’m speaking to : Its possible to see that both might be true at some level?
Which means we can bait and switch levels whenever it suits us in conversation, which would be dishonest - or to be more charitable, we could at some point in the conversation point out that we are merely speaking from a human point of view (not from the point of view of frogs, or aliens, or galaxies)
You mentioned the notion of less and more insightful ideas. I was running with that by wondering about the potential consequences of viewing all ideas as equally (un)insightful. Think of an idea in the way you would think of a symbol on a map. Are all the symbols on a given map equally real or unreal? I am aware we have wandered into a strange and possibly goofy realm, let’s feel free to make our way back to ‘reality.’
This is what we have been trying to explore. The answer is most obviously (to me) and demonstrably No.
There are maps that are helpful - we want to use these ones (nb. the purpose of maps : symbolic representation of spatial geometry, data representation in order for info - getting from point A to B etc) and maps that are misleading.
If you say you were just goofin around (for personal reasons) - then we can drop it.
If words come from perception those are true.
If words come from imagination, they are not true.
Silence is truth as only silent mind can perceive.
Generally society is based on part perception, part opinion. Nowadays there is bombardment of opinions due to media, communication, there is very little perception of nature.
What is purpose of dialogue? Perhaps to see limitation of words so that mind sees directly importance of silent mind
I think we should drop it for now.
1 Like
All symbols are real symbols. Even when we don’t know what a symbol may signify, we know it’s symbolic.
1 Like
I wondered if this needed to be stated - Yes, all symbols are equally symbolic
I can agree with this idea - my argument with @rickScott could have led here (it nudged it for a second) but we were probably too preoccupied by our own hidden motives.
Were we having an argument? Who won? 
No one - my theory is no punches landed because we were in separate rings
1 Like
“When the mind reveals to itself its own efforts of fears and wants, then there arises integral awareness of its own impermanency which alone can set the mind free from its binding labors.”
“The Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti”, Vol. 3, Second Talk at Ommen, 1936.
1 Like