Tricky stuff - I’d just like to say that for me : I don’t know.
Is it helpful to say that consciousness is expressed in a certain fashion via this brain, and that the simplest way we can express that consciousness, is the clearest (less subjective, confused, complicated, conflicted) ?
Some of Krishnamurties mental exercises are highly impractical and actually not very relevant in solving real world problems because nature is supreme, not man and what he may think. We have to learn to better grasp the foundation of reality, which is based on the natural potential of permanent change determined by the natural world man can only try to observe and learn from no matter how advanced our technology may become - it will always be better to understand natural processes better, adapt to them and not try to fight nature blindly or with limited insights into the workings of nature.
Hello,
Which mental exercises of K’s are you referring to?
Could you also say a bit more about what you mean by the supremacy of nature and how this supremacy of nature counteracts whatever we might be discussing here?
For your information : I studied and worked with Permaculture for many years. (I mean I try to be an ally for life in general)
Is the phrase “permanent change” an oxymoron or a redundancy? We could say that change is permanent because nothing continues to exist without undergoing change.
Krishnamurti’s message is that it’s time our species undergoes the radical transformation from being self-centered to being selfless, if it isn’t obvious.
And thought says “no need for any of that old business, just look to the brave new future that’s coming …we can solve all the problems that lie ahead, look what we’ve done up till now, we’re amazing!” etc, etc.
Hi,
thanks for raising these questions!
Human thinking can take on forms which have a limited constructive purpose
and practical value. I am not objecting to the theoretical examination of abstract
thought in general. It’s only when terminology comes into play which is not
clearly defined, more confusion may be the result than what can be learned from
such conversations.
I find it interesting, when talking about applying rational thought in objective ways,
we seldom even question to which extent we have even learned to grasp reality
being confined to a human perspective of things … in most aspects not even
clear in our own minds not to be able to understand the reason, purpose and
intent of nature versus the strictly human dimension in obvious contrast to it.
I hope I made my comment a bit more understandable …
Kind regards!