The eye sees what the mind knows?
Is the edge freedom?
Presumably itâs âalways presentâ and the conditioned brain alters, distorts, or denies it. So âwhat isâ is the ever-present truth and the brainâs conditioned response to it.
Thatâs how I see it too.
I guess we couldnât be âseriousâ K-students if we didnât all see âseeingâ the same way from our separate, tricked-out worldsâŚ
You guys might qualify as serious K-students. Iâm more the smart aleck who sits in the back and tries to find flaws in the lectures. Guess we each have our roles?
Can we discuss this ?
I do agree that the âwhat isâ is all that is ever-present, the truth & brainâs response to it.
So, the âwhat isâ is the âwhat is + the what is notâ ? Maybe K calls the truth the âwhat isâ, and the âwhat is + the what is notâ, K would call it ârealityâ ? Cause even if the brain invents stuff, it is still a happening taking place, hence it is real, real imagination, like the mirage in the desert, it is a real phenomenon.
Sorry
I know K - Bohm discussed
-Truth
-Actuality
-Reality
As kind of distinct aspects
Not sure what the âwhat isâ would be
?
You accept the key elements of the K-canon so you can be acceptable, and you dispute lesser elements so you can be irritating?
Iâm more the smart aleck who sits in the back and tries to find flaws in the lectures.
In this case the lecturer is dead and the students are trying to grasp what he was saying when he was alive, but if you feel thereâs a need for a smart aleck here, who am I to say otherwise?
From what I know about Kâs teaching, K and Bohm decided to name what the individual believes to be true, ârealityâ, while what is actually true, is to be called âactualityâ. So, the conditioned brain is existing in the bubble of its personal reality, which exists in the wider, deeper context of actuallity.
This is our predicament, the human condition. We are securely sequestered in the safe predictability of our personal prisons, I, me, mine, while being unable to deny that this is our predicament. We, the human species, have created and are sustaining this condition because weâve been doing it for so long, we donât know what else to do, and we canât stop doing this.
The âwhat isâ is everything - the impersonal truth and the personal distortion of the impersonal truth. This is why the phrase âwhat-isâ is confusing. Personal truth is ârealityâ and actual truth is âactualityâ. They are completely different, but because they coexist, they are both âwhat isâ. So itâs not only meaningless to speak of âwhat isâ without being specific, itâs confusing.
Yea⌠I agree
Thanks !
BOOM! Your message has been received, loud or clear. Must go now and lick my wounds.
When you wound someone you wound yourself. When you kill someone you kill yourself.
1 Like
Sometimes works that way. Other times weâre oblivious to that which we wreak. Or maybe Iâm misinterpreting what you said?
I mean that in order to hurt you, I have to see you as the âotherâ. It is an action of isolation? And it also implies that something can be âdifferentâ than what it isâŚ
1 Like
Sorry for BOOMing and wounding youâŚnot my intention.
1 Like
It is difficult not to be in opposition. I am somewhat of a process of opposition.
Being conflict in action, and acting upon other emotional centers (humans, including myself, and other creatures) should we acknowledge some responsibility for suffering?
My opinions feel so important, I feel that they must, must be expressed. But surely I am not a slave to that primal urge?
Is there no way of seeing, accepting and taking responsibilty for the movement of knowledge and suffering?
The observer projects an image. We call that image the observed. (the image could be an image of the observer 
)
The observer then observes the image it has projected, this is called observing.
The observations are then reprocessed for use as further observations.
Hot damn! The relation is incestuous in nature (which can lead to problems I hear)