Perception and hallucination: Krishnamurti among the neuroscientists

[James]

So, the next step is, can we actually do this? So, for example, you say that

@macdougdoug

Usually when we look at something we know what it is, and we know stuff about it above and beyond the simple visual image. (eg. my grandad planted this oak tree)

But is this necessarily the case?

There are some flowers just outside the window where I am sitting. I think it is quite possible just to look at these flowers for a few seconds without any particular mental image.

What do you think?

[macdougdoug]

I reckon its possible.

We can be looking at something without reacting to it mentally. Its even possible to be looking straight at something whilst thinking about something else completely. Or even to be looking at something and not even be completely conscious of the optical image.

@James

I think it is quite possible just to look at these flowers for a few seconds without any particular mental image.

When you say look here, do we mean actively ? or just happen to see?

[James]

We are not talking about absent mindedness or zoning out, or peripheral awareness of an object.

Just simple seeing, looking , at a flower for a few seconds. In this there is a certain degree of alertness, but not a forced alertness. It is natural, healthy, part of human sensitivity.

I am only talking about seeing in this way for a few seconds.

I think this is possible and normal.

[macdougdoug]

When I actively look at something right now - due to the questions being asked - I get the impression that there are moments where the thought process is not active. It might be slightly unnatural, forced, but it is possible.

[James]

Obviously there is a difference between being compelled or obliged to look at something, and looking spontaneously.

This is why these questions we are asking require as well some exploration in daily life, not just an instant answer.

But I think for most of us this simple spontaneous looking does happen, but it is usually overlooked, forgotten about, because our minds are so preoccupied with thinking and worrying and planning, etc.

So what is the next step?

There are a couple of directions that occur to me:

1. The fact that this simple seeing of a flower (or whatever it is) is possible in daily life is a major clue. If we are able to look at something without mental images for a few seconds it means that it may be possible to look in this way for minutes or even longer. And if we can look in this way for many minutes, that is something already quite significant.
2. The fact that this simple looking is almost completely occluded in daily life by the prevalence of thought, mental life, mental worries, images, cogitations, is also a big clue. So can we, in the same way that we look outwardly at trees and flowers and clouds , look inwardly at the activity of our mental movement?

[macdougdoug]

I’m reminded of when I’m sitting with the local zazen group in silence and the house dog suddenly bounds in snuffling up to everyone for a cuddle, or children start shouting about stuff in the street outside.

Here sense perception (sound, smell, moist pushy snout etc) can bring with it a lot of seemingly pressing psychological reactions.
It is possibe to let go of resistance, allow mental agitation to subside.

Though sometimes we can still be reacting psychologically to the sights and sounds long after they’ve gone.

[James]

This brings up the question of relationship that @Sean mentioned previously.

In relationship with other people - including pets! - we have reactions that are sustained and nourished mentally.

So we have visual and auditory - as well as olfactory and tactile - perception of people (and pets), and our mental responses to these percepts.

Instinctive responses are one thing - instinctive responses to strong sounds or smells, etc.

But distinct from instinctive responses are mental responses generated from our thoughts and memories/associations.

Is it possible for us to inwardly look at these mental responses (mental images) in the same way that we were talking about looking at trees , flowers , and clouds ?

[Jess]

All this sounds to me as pure La Palisse’s truth or a la palissade! What Krishnamurti means by direct perception is simply to look with care by giving your best unhindered attention to it (we can here be reminded that Krishnamurti refers ‘attention’ to ‘to attend’… we somehow surrender, it’s the best of you that is invested in this perception).

[James]

@Jess

What Krishnamurti means by direct perception is simply to look with care by giving your best unhindered attention to it

In the context of the present dialogue we haven’t yet discussed ‘direct perception’.

What I would call a weak form of direct perception is simply the looking at a flower for a few seconds without any mental images present.

But to look at a flower in such a way that the observer is the observed, and the time-space interval is removed, is something quite different. This I would call a strong form of direct perception, and we haven’t discussed this yet on the thread.

[macdougdoug]

@James

Is it possible for us to inwardly look at these mental responses (mental images) in the same way that we were talking about looking at trees , flowers , and clouds ?

Even if we want to keep it simple - this question is definitely trickier.

For example, an “optical image” is produced by the body/brain in response to external stimuli.
Its an automatic, mechanical process producing a visual experience.

My thoughts in reaction to what I see, include me. I (who I am, what I want) am implicated in that psychological reaction.

But we can also say : Yes. I can see (in the sense I know, am aware that) that mentation is occuring, I know that I’m getting upset etc.

[James]

@macdougdoug

But we can also say : Yes. I can see (in the sense I know, am aware that) that mentation is occuring, I know that I’m getting upset etc.

Yes. I am wanting to keep it at this level of simplicity. If we bring in a word like ‘self’, then it becomes too complicated.

I am replying to your previous post where you mentioned that

@macdougdoug

the house dog suddenly bounds in snuffling up to everyone for a cuddle, or children start shouting about stuff in the street outside.

Here sense perception (sound, smell, moist pushy snout etc) can bring with it a lot of seemingly pressing psychological reactions…

sometimes we can still be reacting psychologically to the sights and sounds long after they’ve gone.

So in relationship with others we have both the various sensory percepts (seeing, hearing, smelling, etc), as well as instinctive responses to especially strong percepts (sounds, smells, bodily movements)…

And, in addition, we also have mental responses to these percepts: emotional reactions, irritations, upset, pleasure, imaginative projection, associations of memory, etc.

And so, in the same way that we were talking about seeing a tree without mental images, can we similarly ‘see’ (that is, see inwardly: be aware of, pay attention to, feel, sense, perceive) these contents of our mental reactions?

For sure, this is a step further than simple optical seeing. But if it helps to clarify things, perhaps one can take a simple, clear reaction - such as irritation (e.g. in response to someone making loud noises) - and become aware of this.

It is possible to do this for a few seconds, wouldn’t you say?

[macdougdoug]

@James

perhaps one can take a simple, clear reaction - such as irritation (e.g. in response to someone making loud noises) - and become aware of this.

It is possible to do this for a few seconds, wouldn’t you say?

Yes - when the dog destroys the temple vibe at the meditation group, I worry that things aren’t going as they should, and I can be aware of my irritation.

[James]

Great!

So, so far - although we are apparently going too slowly for Jess! - we have talked about

• outward seeing (with the eye : seeing trees and flowers and clouds ;

• And inward seeing (with awareness: being aware of irritation, reaction in relationship).

The next question is, What is our relationship with these reactions in relationship?

We are returning to something you mentioned yesterday.

That is, in relationship there is often conflict, tension: between different points of view, different temperaments, different ways of using words, because of misunderstandings that arise out of using words differently - or even how loud someone is when they are eating! (you know how petty we can sometimes be in relationship!).

So do we see our reactions as contents ‘outside’ of us, like the tree is outside of us?

Or do we see that the reaction - of irritation, annoyance, hurt, etc - is part of us, part of the one who is aware, who sees, who feels?

(This is again a question without a right or wrong answer - it is something to look at, experiment with, feel out).

In the moment of feeling irritation, am I different from my irritation?

[macdougdoug]

@James

Or do we see that the reaction - of irritation, annoyance, hurt, etc - is part of us, part of the one who is aware, who sees, who feels?

This seems obvious : its my annoyance, my feelings

What about the dog that I am reacting to? Is she really an annoying dog that is creating problems for all the good people? Are my feelings automatic and normal because they are correct responses to external stimuli? Adequate responses to the situation?

@James

In the moment of feeling irritation, am I different from my irritation?

Probably not, but in the moment when I recognise that I am feeling angry, some separation seems to occur.

PS. I gotta go.

[James]

@macdougdoug

What about the dog that I am reacting to? Is she really an annoying dog that is creating problems for all the good people? Are my feelings automatic and normal because they are correct responses…? Adequate responses…?

For the time being we are bracketing whether the reaction is correct or incorrect, appropriate or inappropriate. And for the time being the dog is off the hook!

In the context of the present dialogue we are only concerned with the fact of our reaction - whatever it may be, whatever caused it - and our relationship to this fact.

As you say, in the moment of irritation - the reaction we call ‘irritation’ - there is no difference between ourselves and the reaction.

It is only after we become aware or recognise that we are feeling irritated that we see irritation as something slightly separate from us. I.e. as something ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, correct or incorrect, appropriate or inappropriate. We may feel ashamed about feeling irritated, or we may feel justified in feeling irritated. But there is a subtle sense in which we feel different from the reaction of irritation itself.

So we are asking - as part of the exploration into what it means to see without images - whether we can make direct contact with the feeling of the reaction, the quality of the reaction, so that we are completely in contact with the reaction?

One of the implications of this is that if I am not different to my reaction, if the reaction is me, then I cannot ‘do’ anything about this reaction, I cannot ‘act’ upon it to change it. All I can do is be negatively aware of it; which means to see/feel/be it until or unless it naturally subsides.

More generally, we are asking ourselves if we can be aware of, inwardly ‘see’, our reactions and images as they occur in real time, in the context of relationship.

As we said before, this is something to be experimented with in the context of our daily relationships. We do not need an immediate answer or conclusion.

[Inquiry]

@James

To repeat: what is called the ‘optical image’ in neurobiology is not what we are referring to as a ‘mental image’. The former has to do with our neurobiological hardware (as explained previously), while the latter has to do with our psychological software.

I hope this is clear to everyone.

It is now, but earlier when you brought up the etymology of the word “image”, I found it confusing to use it as both imagined and not imagined; real and imagined images.

[James]

I think you will find that it was Douglas, not myself, who was using the word ‘image’ for both visual percepts and mental images. I clarified my own usage several times, and requested that we limit our usage of ‘images’ to mental images and not optical percepts.

I brought up the etymology of ‘image’ to emphasise its borrowed character - i.e. it is a copy, just as the memory of a flower is a copy of the actual percept we call a ‘flower’ .

[macdougdoug]

@James

As you say, in the moment of irritation - the reaction we call ‘irritation’ - there is no difference between ourselves and the reaction.

It is only after we become aware or recognise that we are feeling irritated that we see irritation as something slightly separate from us. I.e. as something ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, correct or incorrect, appropriate or inappropriate. We may feel ashamed about feeling irritated, or we may feel justified in feeling irritated. But there is a subtle sense in which we feel different from the reaction of irritation itself.

So can we just admit that our reactions can be complex?
Just because we have a simple example of a dog entering a dojo, and someone reacting to this canine intrusion, does not mean that the ensuing reaction will be one of only simple irritation.
The fact that, due to conditions, I also become self conscious, feel guilty, wish I was not irritated etc all this can simply be called my reaction/my experience (albeit a complex, confused and conflicted reaction)

And that I am not separate from this whole reaction? (which includes the sense of feeling separate from, feeling self conscious about, the initial irritation)

[Inquiry]

@James

I brought up the etymology of ‘image’ to emphasise its borrowed character - i.e. it is a copy, just as the memory of a flower is a copy of the actual percept we call a ‘flower’ .

Yes, but now we’re saying that a visual image is not a copy or something imagined, but an actual thing. How can something actual, alive, be an image?

I find this confusing because when I’m looking at a tree there’s usually some movement of the foliage if not the branches, so it’s too animated to be an image. I’m seeing a tree - not an image of a tree. Calling it a “visual” image is still making an image of it.

[macdougdoug]

@Inquiry

so it’s too animated to be an image.

We have decided that its too confusing for now in this conversation to use the word “image” for what we see when we look at something - its better to call it a “visual experience” or an “optical precept” (sorry if I slipped up along the way)

But btw the sense that something is moving can be acheived via a succession of images aka video, movie.