Hello, Fraggle!
Well, I think you agree that saying something is fragmented sounds as if it is the agent that is fragmented, in fragments, that is, composed of disconnected parts and most commonly without a definite shape. Thought can do its work very accurately and thoroughly, which is of an analytical nature, it just doesn’t get the whole instantly, so to say. Contradictory also doesn’t seem to me to be the best word to define what thought is and what it does is to associate one aspect of an issue with its opposite, thought is just this movement which may highlight contrast but also similarities, it is not contradictory in itself, as I see it.
How do “we care for” what’s beyond us? If I think the mind is “the doorway to '‘a different way of living’”, I’m claiming knowledge of something I know nothing more than what someone said about it.
Well, Inquiry, I could have meant to care for in relation to a different way of living or to the mind, you choose. But, anyway, I don’t see that one can’t care for the ‘unknown’. I understand you speak for yourself, in that case it’s perfectly alright.
Why should I or any other reader choose what you meant if you don’t know?
You’re doing it again, Inquiry, you don’t follow what one is saying! I didn’t say I didn’t know which I meant, I said I could mean one or the other. And I said ‘you choose’ and in this case it is in fact you because it was you who questioned.
If you can’t write well enough to make yourself clear to the reader, don’t accuse those who point it out of not paying attention.
1 Like
Sorry, Inquiry, I can write very well what I mean and what I wrote above and which is in question was absolutely clear. You didn’t pay attention or you were just careless, that’s all. I just want to add that I’m not interested in turning my attention to your problems of understanding what people say, that is up to you.
Welcome to the intriguing world of “scare…
Well, thanks.
Thanks for putting the quote Rick. Apparently I have forgotten the exact words.
Years ago I put the date of the journal on Kinfonet replying to someone. It was there then at the K Study Center here in Sri Lanka.
1 Like
Hello, Jess!
Who is this ‘fragmented agent’ you refer to, if I may ask?
Thought is what I’m referring to there, Fraggle.That’s what Krishnamurti says it is fragmented. What I think is that what thought does can be said to be fragmented in that it analyzes and doesn’t see the totality of an experience, but thought in itself is very consistent, it just operates thoroughly, as I said before. Of course this is a very complex matter, to keep it simple is not easy. Just in the discussions with D Bohm, Krishnamurti equates thought with perception and truth and then says the nature of thought may change. Well, I must say that personally I’m not worried about the nature of thought, the content of consciousness is what is important.
Just in the discussions with D Bohm, Krishnamurti equates thought with perception and truth
Jess,
Where do you get this please?
Hello, Kule!
That is in Part l, chapter 4 ‘Thought and Perception ‘ of the book The Limits of Thought.
Hi @Kule
Apart from the book you can also listen to the actual thing(*), as the transcript of the book is not ‘exactly’ the same as the audio (many things are missing between the lines, and in some parts I have had the impression that the transcriber is transcribing his interpretation of the talk, not the talk itself). You can check it out for yourself.
(*) the video will start at minute 12:15 which is where the transcript starts in the book.
What a great video Fraggle, thanks! I could only watch half and will finish it but the point where I left K was saying when something like greed is seen in its entirety that that is the ending of thought and Bohm was saying not the ending of thought…
what K was saying is that when something is seen in its totality, like greed, thought no longer has any place there. The memory, or habit, or ‘reflex’ (that Bohm would later call it) would dissolve in the light of perceiving the whole of it.
The perception is the freedom from it.
I clicked on the link - Bohm kept asking “why does thought seek security?”
Why does the rocket accelerate through the air?
Thought seeks security because thats its purpose, for what it has been designed, designed over millions of years of evolution.
Our first unicellular ancestor moved away from the bad and towards the good, and its descendents continued to do so in increasigly complex and subtle ways.
I thought that what Bohm wanted to get straight is that if thought is a ‘mechanism’, why does a mechanical thing seek security? Machines don’t care about security, they function and then they stop, break down. Why security for this ‘mechanism’ thought?
‘I’ want security because I don’t want to get hurt physically but also psychologically. I am hurt psychologically by having the image of myself threatened, ridiculed, disrespected, humiliated etc. I fear the ‘future’ where these things and more ‘might’ take place. So I guard against ‘bad’ things happening to me as well as I can. I carry with me a ‘mantle’ of fear.
Fear of the loss of my feeling of security?
The argument is makeable that the movement away from the bad (less favorable) and towards the good (more favorable) also applies to inanimate objects like electrons and insentient organisms like plants. File under: Corrolaries of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
But I think what is important here is the question of thought moving away in order to protect itself? Is the danger that it fears based on the imaginary idea that it has formed of itself as a living, continuous entity? Is it? Or is it a ‘mechanism’? Am I an individual or am I as K is suggesting, nothing, not-a-thing? And if I am nothing, isn’t the search for psychological security incoherent?
1 Like
This is like asking, “Why does a hammer want to drive a nail”?
A tool doesn’t want anything because it isn’t sentient. The sentient organism has a security system that activates the tool when reacting to alarm, be it appropriate or false.