Appreciating, knowing the intricacies of how nature works, the complexity, the orderliness of it all, doesn’t detract from the “mystery “ of it , it enhances it.
1 Like
Physical knowledge meaning experiencing the actions or the action of experience or actions based on experience, done for a living and survival. Examples: Knowledge of Learning or Mathematics, Knowledge of a Skill, Language, Cultivation, Construction etc.
Psychological Knowledge means the knowledge gathered via experiences in human relationships and use that knowledge again in any future human interactions, so that instead of acting in the present or from that very moment, one always peeps the present from prism of past knowledge. Meaning human beings are never live in this very moment or present, but always live in the shadow of past. All those moments which are copy of the past are Inevitably end up in conflicting moments of human living. Knowledge in human relationships dictates the present from seeing what is to what ot should be. This becomes wedge in human relationships. So psychological knowledge in the realm human relationships has no value what so ever and hence useless. As long as one is in present, listening and beaware of one self during human relationship interactions, all those moments are free of conflict. This can be tested immediately when we meet any one.
Refer my earlier post for source of knowledge and genesis of thought.
2 Likes
Thanks karne, I think I get what you’re saying :
In our relationship with objects, our knowledge is useful. But in our relationships with other humans, knowledge is useless and potentially detrimental/conflictual.
If this is correct I have 3 questions :
What about our relationship with animals?
What about a Psychologist’s or Neurologist’s relationship with their patient?
Is the difference between things(and maybe animals?) and humans due to my perception or is it some sort of fundamental reality?
Relationship with Animals?
Humans are one among the animals. Self glorified by language. They did some good things for them selves and most of the things destructive for them selves and rest of the planet. Still doing.
The animals watch you and you watch the animals. The relationships they have you have same relationships. They act for survival and you act for survival.
Neurologist relationship with patient: A relationship between two human beings. One claims to have learned neurology and other puts the trust for the knowledge gained by doctor.
You are putting questions from the repository of your knowledge. I think one needs start afresh by putting aside the knowledge, to begin to question.
1 Like
Depends on how you define “psychological knowledge”. In “the realm of human relationships” there is much to learn that is not psychological, not involving ego, but involving how best to avoid misunderstanding and promote clarity.
What would a question without any knowledge be like? I am under the impression that without knowledge there would be no questions.
In practise of course, for humans, questions do arise out of our experience and imagination - even primitive humans with very little knowledge seem to have easily managed to come up with all sorts of stories about their interpretation of reality.
And the the distinction/separation between the physical/material and mental/psychological worlds did seem to crop up very early in mankind’s vision of the world.
However it is logically evident that the world that we perceive is wholly psychological : it is the brain that creates our image of reality.
On the other hand, we can also say that the emotional/mental/psychological is a pure product of the physical - ie our brain/the cerebellum produces the thoughts.
So the separation we see between “real”/physical and imagined/psychological is not as evident as it feels to us.
the best I can do with minimal knowledge is : What is it?
Sir,
Avoid, promote are like keeping the problem as it is and finding the solutions.
The very understanding of the problem is the beginning of the solution. Solutions lies in the understanding of the problem.
Can you do a experiment by your self. Just be in present and listen to a person, at the same time be aware of your self actively. Just listen do not react from the past knowledge about the person. Just meet him as if you are meeting him for the first time and every time. Active listen does not need recording of that movement of or in relationships.
Just see. What happens. Do not doubt your capacity to be always in the present and being aware of the present.
1 Like
Question without zero knowledge means simply " I do not know". Then there is observation, complete attention, no burden to look at things with prism of knowledge, loom fresh with total energy ( all sensory organs together), and so on.
Sir - empty the bucket of universal knowledge and try to look at the things fresh.
Photosynthesis as word and term, cannot capture how plant uses photosynthesis. The words cannot describe the one that is being described.
First JK dialogues are purely discussed in the realm of human relationships and he does not talk of science, or claims of science. Because, those are matters not concerned directly with human relationships.
Let us talk one of these days. Let us if we can see “what is” together.
1 Like
The claim that “I don’t know” assumes/knows at least 2 ideas : the concept of me & the concept of knowing. - But Yes, seems like a good place to start.
Is this something that I can do? Can I decide to empty the bucket? And why have I decided to do such a thing?
This is a method…
Applaud everything else; regarding this one line I would propose that the reason why animals have limited language and communication (assumption to be investigated) is mainly physical; they don’t seem to have the capacity to store and process as much information and memories as humans do, which leads to even more limited language and communication. Maybe some animals have even greater capacity. I don’t know.
Anyhow, the point is that animals’ limitation is not coming from a need (intention). Evidently there was a “need” in nature since humans evolved with such capacity.
One must not play games 
Do not make it into a method or process. Listen.
We must go slowly. Let’s not jump into conclusions and go into agree/disagree.
Question (verb) - without knowledge - means - I do not know.
Stay with the statement, it is not a claim, a proposition, or a suggestion. Stay with it. Question.
No. Your ego/mind cannot empty itself, obviously. Also if you make a decision, that implies a choice, which implies confusion and is of thought - is it not?
Can we - without assertion - see what knowledge is, how its structure comes about - and only when we see that very clearly - get rid of it, the whole construction.
This requires serious investigation, and attention which arises from order. It is not a theory, it is not an idea, it is not a mind game.
I would humbly question the idea of animals capacity to store more information as humans.
When knowledge is always limited whether in physical space or psychological space. How would one conclude they have limited memory and storage.
For storing one litre of water you need a small bottle and for storing 20 litres of water you need a bucket and for storing millions of litres of water you need a dam. Same way, you expand the animals capacity store memory and information if need arises. Can one imagine an orderly society need for knowledge for evolution. Human evolution is mired with language of pride rather than the deeds.
Here humans needs and greed does not match, because the nature evolution human once started on basis of thought, the direction of evolution completely strayed and started to byte the very ecology itself including human who is part of it.
Can you look around and see what makes one things that animals have limited knowledge, memory and capacity to store. Just like a fellow animal. What gives by very looking at a animal this idea?
1 Like
@anon77654962 asks “how do we resolve the dichotomy between the subjective reality of what we see and the objective reality of what is ?”
We have this idea of “what is”, objective reality, and even “absolute truth” and we want to see it.
What is “objective reality”? Surely whatever I see is, by definition, subjective.
The senses if they are not damaged in some way physically all describe what is seen, heard, smelled, etc in the same way. We can agree on those sensations. The subjectivity overlaying that subjective sensing is the like/dislike, attraction/repulsion…’our’ tastes, our ‘types’. The experience and knowledge that is reflected in the thinking.
To meet someone as if for the first time is a methodical approach, a strategy, a game.
1 Like
The brain creates what is seen : colors, smells, shapes etc are all produced by the brain. Humans with human brains have their primate based subjectivity. The Chinese, the Arabs the Europeans etc have their cutural subjectivity.
Question 1 (implied by the initial question at the beginning of the thread) : Is subjectivity neutral or is it necessarily biased? for example faced with the smell of rotting meat, the sight of a predator, the thought of disease, a member of the opposite sex etc - Is not perception purely based on survival?
Question 2 What do we mean by objective reality? Can it be said to exist outside of our imagination?
Sure there is an actual ‘reality’, we humans or dogs or birds, etc just can’t ‘know’ what it is. Probably only ‘IT’ knows what it is. If that is true then we will to some extent always be in the ‘dark’.
Unless we actually ARE the dark.
What did the poet say, “let the dark be your candle”?
1 Like
“No matter how fast you run, your shadow more than keeps up…
Darkness is your candle. Your boundaries are your quest”
Rumi
Seeing who we are is the quest, not imagining magical Unicorns.
My quest to see what is may be a quest to capture a Unicorn.
What am I? What is what is? Other than a feeling and an idea?
How long must a feeling struggle before it thinks it has caught its own imaginary treasure?