← Back to Kinfonet

No advice, please

Say I am aware of what might be called dreaming, or of thinking in the waking state. The content of the thinking can be interesting, informative and engaging. But it’s obsessive nature is what I can find disturbing, frustrating. The engagement is troublesome. Why are the thoughts running at all? Why does the thinking have a compelling force, seemingly unstoppable? The interaction I might have is a consuming recommitment to the dominating train of thought. I am forced into a concurring participation by default.

Is this process indicative of the actual state of affairs which goes unnoticed in day to day life? Are we going about the day with dominant trains of thought? Is this an interference which affects our disposition to life? The instinct is to control, if not stop, any train of thought deemed irrelevant, or unnecessary. This effort is futile. The engagement becomes another train of thought. In the consequence of this interaction which proves difficult and futile, there is the disturbed, obsessive mind. This exercise is probably what we believe is productive thinking.

What I may be saying is awareness is the continuing engagement with an obsessive thought process, or thinking. The possibility I can know about thought, to think about it, is also further engagement with a process. This is said to be indicative of an underlying state of fear where the mind has shifted away from the clarity of actuality, to be interacting with images, words, ideas, belief, etc. The idea there is some kind of separate independency where I have ability, is part of the shift in fear. The effort to control is a byproduct of fear, although it seems an ordinary, routine, task. The controlling instinct is what makes the flow of thought problematic and disagreeable. We can’t stop a controlling instinct. What can be done is to seriously, fully, look at this whole fear we call self, for oneself, not as some issue, but completely, as in meditation, and watch the flow of thought, not interacting or reacting.

1 Like

Because that thinking is me? I am compelled by my own desires, I believe my own beliefs - they are who I am. I am drawn screaming and crying on a rollercoaster of my own making.

I ebb and flow - who can I watch when I’m not there - should we intentionally summon the self when there is nothing to see - when I am here, are my thoughts really so important?

Doesn’t matter what is said, there is the automatic response. We see, in response, the questions raised are someone advising their point of view, their interpretation, caught in thought. Throughout blogs and discussion we see a controversy, a clever use of language, only repeating the confusion. It is a habit of talking about something abstractly, theoretically.
What does it take for people to realise a common condition actually existent, or not, not relying on some idea of exclusiveness? Is it because thought is itself conditioned, it is the conditioning, conditioned to violence, and it is what we are following? This is a terrifying thought. Inescapably, we have a system, a psychology, of violence. The violence has been tamed, modified, made socially acceptable, but then through other ways, in all of our civilization, we repeat the violence.

1 Like

Thought is a tool, but due to our need to know, fear has made it our master.

Most people would not be surprised by the comment, people spend their lives adapting to society, education, customs, beliefs, law, business, and all that. Some find it good some bad, some tolerable, some objectionable. They have some idea they are an individual, a person, a citizen, and work in this way, for themselves, even if it is to be with others, serving others. Even if there is the idea of cooperation, community, nationality, they still see their work as their own effort. This individualism is what is mostly assumed to be true. It seems we have always been acting according to this condition, and have built civilization on this basis. Strange that the builders built something which does not simply accommodate their ordinary selves, except that they can utilize the need to know.

1 Like

Civilisation, the cooperative society, would be due to the fact that we are herd animals, we live in groups. Though we rarely howl at the moon or shit in the woods anymore. And thanks to our rational minds we can rationalise the wellbeing of the group as being good for my wellbeing.

Is mind really conditioned to violence? Or is violence a consequence of conditioning?

Without making this a rhetorical exercise, it is important to see the difference between cause and effect. Addressing effect will never stop or change the cause. Yes we are conditioned to witnessing and accepting violence in every facet of our life without questioning it. Yet the cause of violence is in separation, which implies fear of no-thing.

Is the separation of the world into good and bad a fundamental function of the human mind? That surely would be violence.

1 Like

We think of peace, love, kindness, compared to hate, abuse, violence. These are just ideas. It is said, fundamentally, there is a division, self image, and actuality. We don’t see we can live without self image. But this is a mechanical life, not living. A division, a violation of living, and we make effort, artificially, emotionally, psychologically, to manage it. We are not living harmoniously. The violation has become a way of life, and violent.

1 Like

Yes I see this could be only rhetorical. Again in above, the cause of violence is separation (into good and bad), not conditioning to violence?

I’m really just asking. What would conditioning to violence (as a cause) look like? From where would it arise initially?

Separation and fear and escape are factual causes of violence, and their arising seems obvious from the function of the mind. So I am wondering if violence is actually “just” a consequence of the conditioning, not conditioning itself.

If this is semantics, let’s drop it. The importance of the questioning is that should violence be only a consequence, then addressing it would not bring any change, only further violence and disorder.

Seeing this conditioning to violence (sic) seems to release a lot of energy! Violence is inherently violent, which means that whenever the concept/idea is used, it is luring the mind into more violence. A powerful idea, a powerful conditioning, where powerful means an overwhelming attraction for the mind to identify and attach to it.

sexual reproduction would be one event in the efficacity of violence as a survival mechanism?

1 Like

And psychologically? What would be violence in the absence of separation, fear and identification of the mind? It seems that we would not have violence psychologically without the mind.

Now, does violence give rise to the mind? Or is it always, that mind must exist for there to be violence? And if we can focus purely on psychological violence. We can all easily see physical acts of violence in the world without the mind (reproduction, eating, maybe even just growing).

1 Like

Isn’t violence psychological ? In language we speak of two asteroïds colliding as being violent - but where is the violence? In the mind of the observer or in the destruction of the forms?

Hi jm,

sorry, been very busy elsewhere,

re: violence,

I read part of Mary Trump’s book, *g

Firstly, the shrinks & psychologists refer to this as the psychopath (such an unfortunate choice of a label, eh?), the more intelligent psychotherapists refer to this as the Superiority/Inferiority complex (layer of consciousness).

This layer is blue in colour, and happens when a child under 7 is exposed to violence in any way, shape or form. Fear as a threat (more like terror, eh?) to the survival of either oneself or someone close to them is the conditioning. The child thus exposed interprets this as a threat, whether or not someone actually dies.

Any invasion of one’s physical boundary - or someone else’s boundary (without consent) can be understood as violence by the child, thus the conditioning.

So, rape, incest, etc. under age 7, the colour is dark blue. Lighter forms of violence, the colour is lighter blue. Prior to meditation, was not clairvoyant btw.

Now, insofar as my past is concerned, way before discovering K, I dated a psychotherapist… and this book was on the coffee table, I think by Colette Portelance, which I read… It described all the complexes, defence mechanisms, etc. (and things like power, domination/submission, etc.) which correlates extraordinarily well with K’s layers of consciousness. So, when I read K, and he spoke of layers of consciousness, I recall smiling and recalled Portelance’s description of complexes. I can’t for the life of me recall the title, too many years have past, and I don’t retain very much of the past… except for certain facts about it.

My go-to example is always Trump, but I watch from time to time “Morning Joe”, and observe Mika (Joe’s wife), reeking of arrogance… They like to play god…

Are you calling the fact that you experience colours in relation to violence : clairvoyance?
Another word that might fit is : synesthesia. - for some people numbers have colours and/or textures

Hi mac,

There is no experience, there is just observation, yes clairvoyance.

Ridiculous… You are interpreting what I said in terms that have no relevance. I am not synesthetic at all. I said prior to K, was not clairvoyant. It was an insight that opened all that up. I never discussed this particular insight before on this site. If you keep referring to things that are only intellectual interpretations, it is highly unlikely that you will ever even have one insight. You see, the meaning of life is to discover reality, to see it. Words are a waste of time and energy. Thought is meaningless.

Edit: Again, there is comparison in operation in your comment, comparing what you don’t know with what you have read or heard about, the things you know of. And that isn’t enquiry at all. You don’t know if clairvoyance is true. You see, that’s the problem, that you would rather advance something - some theory and apply it to someone, when you have no idea whether or not it is true, whether or not it is a fact. So, what I am saying, and have to repeat, that it seems easier for someone just to say “I don’t believe you”, which would be just fine and would be an honest appreciation of a post.

There is violence in the world, and it is obviously adherent. This is the gross violence between people, and against something. But what is meant by the word violence here is the human life in violation. This is said to be at the root a psychological schism, a division, inner and outer, brought about through the mechanism of thought, labelling, and naming things, and then the accumulated divided thought in memory, knowledge.

1 Like

Sorry if I have offended.
Synesthesia just means that some people have additional perceptions than is usually the case - eg.colours when perceiving numbers, texture when hearing sounds.

Some folks might even surmise that synesthesia might be a form of clairvoyance, others that its just a quirky additional sensation - Again sorry if I came across as superior or judgemental


No worries. Be well… :slight_smile:

Definition of adherent

(Entry 1 of 2)

: one who adheres to something: such as

a : a follower of a leader, party, or profession Freud’s adherents

b : a believer in or advocate especially of a particular idea or church adherents of Christianity adherents of socialism

This is said to be at the root a psychological schism, a division, inner and outer, brought about through the mechanism of thought, labelling, and naming things, and then the accumulated divided thought in memory, knowledge.

Thought is not the problem. Words are not the enemy. Intelligence is asleep, dormant, and sermonizing and hectoring will not awaken it.