Personally I don’t mind when spanners are thrown ~ though I still think that we must provide reasons for throwing said spanners ~ claims sans argument, incomprehensible claims cannot be addressed, must be dismissed.
(((( Message deleted. ))))
In order to disrupt some mechanical algorithm, I prefer to use wooden clogs (sabots, french) - and these days we do not have to run for our life after such acts of sabotage; we can calmly explain why it was for the best.
Nick Cave for example, explains that true artists do not use chatGPT - for true acts of creation include the suffering, the effort - in this is our shared experience. Even God, he says, rested on the 7th day (He was knackered)
Self is Conditioned/Conditionings. Self is Thought. Self is Past.
How can the past be responsible?
How can the “needy Judge” be responsible?
I think it might be by comparing “eternal pain & violence” to “love” (also known as death) ?
It might also be worth considering asking the original question in question.
Where do we draw the line? Physically speaking, you do that on a representation of what we assume is an accurate representation of reality, a map for example. But you can also use it figuratively. But in either case, isn’t it a freezing of a reality that is in constant motion?
And there has also been talk of feeling/thought but shouldn’t that rather be felts/thoughts. After all, feeling always occurs in the present and can be coloured by felts, same with thinking and thought.
These are just a few comments on this though interesting dialogue.
It seems to me that Krishnamurti provided some clarity around this question and set down a clear line when he suggested that there’s a distinction between physical and psychological self-interest. There is, obviously, the need, in an intelligent living being, for a level of interest in the physical organism, which is not necessarily harmful to itself nor other organisms. However, it’s when we conflate that into the psychological realm that we can start creating problems…for ourselves and others. So, there’s a need to simply being aware of the psychological self that we have falsely constructed. That’s all. That awareness of the (false) psychological self that we’ve created…is the begining of the end of that self, leaving only the true (physical) self? In other words, the physical self is not concocted. It’s true and real. The psychological self is not real…except in our own minds…and that’s where (many) problems seem to emanate from when it comes to conflict within and between human beings. It seems to me that k was simply pointing to the need to be aware of both the real self (physical) and of the unreal/concocted (psychological) self… and that simple awareness would resolve any conflict created by the unreal self.
3 Likes