I think that Bohm (I’m speculating) understood what he was pointing at when he used these words in their talks. But it doesn’t matter, as James said, it moves away from this topic.
K. So, to go into ourselves deeply, fully, a sense of freedom is necessary - not at the end, but at the very beginning. Do not ask how to arrive at that freedom. No system of meditation, no book, no drug, no psychological trick you can play on yourself will give you freedom. Freedom is born of the perception that freedom is essential. The moment you perceive that freedom is essential, you are in a state of revolt - revolt against this ugly world, against all orthodoxy, against tradition, against leadership, both political and religious. Revolt within the framework of the mind soon withers away, but there is a lasting revolt which comes into being when you perceive for yourself that freedom is essential.
Unfortunately, most of us are not aware of ourselves. We have never given thought to the ways of our minds as we have given thought to our techniques, to our jobs. We have never really looked at ourselves; we have never wandered into the depths of ourselves without calculation, without premeditation, without seeking something out of those depths. We have never taken the journey into ourselves without a purpose. The moment one has a motive, a purpose, one is a slave to it; one cannot wander freely within oneself because one is always thinking in terms of change, of self-improvement. One is tied to the post of self-improvement, which is a projection of one’s own narrow, petty mind.
To Be Human | 1st Public Talk, Bombay India, 1959
1 Like
Personally I don’t think that I have the sensitivity for this…maybe need to be younger?
Self knowledge is like traveling around the world, carrying a small suitcase. I discover various countries, I listen to people’s stories, I watch their lives, and I return home as I left, with my small carry on, yet transformed.
1 Like
Why am I acting in this way?
Because I am a homo sapiens : a thinking, social primate online in 2023.
Acting any other way would require a miracle (or a tremendous amount of energy, a state of revulsion or love)
If I was a chimpanzee I would either be cooing at you and grooming you, or snarling and screeching at you, depending on our particular social relationship.
I am acting out my conditioning, just as I was in the school playground many years ago.
We are treating each other as we must, condescending with some, teaming up with others, as our perceived status struggle within the group dictates.
This brings up the fact that self-knowledge exists in the context of our relationships with each other.
Relationships are the ‘mirror’ in which we see ourselves reflected back objectively and clearly. We see our conflicts, our pettiness, our need for affirmation and recognition, our resistances and reactions.
“Why?” questions are not excluded from this observation; we can ask ourselves why we are acting and reacting in the way we do in relationship. But before we ask ourselves “Why?”, there must first of all be an immediate awareness of these reactions. I think this is what we are attempting to get at here.
Can we be aware of these actions and reactions as they occur, as they happen? And then we can ask why they are happening - not as an escape from the observation of the reactions, but as a way of deepening the observation, so that we see all aspects of the reaction.
I may be reacting because of an unresolved hurt I have been carrying from childhood. By observing the reaction as a whole I may discover this, without the need for conscious analysis. The reaction itself can show me what it is, where it came from, what caused it to be there, etc. But unless I am actually in contact with it, through awareness, observation, ‘mindfulness’ (if one accepts this word), then it cannot show me anything.
So awareness of the reaction comes first, and then the “Why?” is part of the very act of observing, the listening to the reaction.
Its a chicken and egg relationship - the potential of awareness to disrupt the self process varies in conjunction with our attitude towards the movement of self.
The Why isn’t important in terms of the details (that we might gain from some form of psychoanalytic narrative) it may be important as a global picture of the whole process (ie. I am acting mechanically or I is mechanical selfishness)
I agree with you, it is precisely a chicken and egg situation! As we know from natural history, in evolutionary terms the egg came first, and chicken much, much later!
Similarly, with regards to self-knowledge, awareness of a reaction comes first, and the “Why?” is merely a subset of this movement of self-awareness. A “Why?” that is asked without any kind of awareness of the thing it is asking about, is an empty “Why?” - it has no meaning.
I don’t understand this sentence Douglas. Can you express it more simply?
1 Like
Sure - I’m still an egg first kind of guy. But what about the recent publications in scientific journals about the chicken being first? were they all published on April fools? Or are the scientists specifically dealing with chicken eggs? as opposed to eggs in general?
Yes - even the “why” as a movement away from/following awareness is just questioning provoked by a need for propositional narrative (ie. part of analytical thought). Awareness that provokes a “why” is most probably due to the human drive for knowledge kicking back into gear.
For awareness to disrupt my experience of reality, there must be some deep suspicion about the truth of my projected reality.
Chicken 
are closely related to Tyrannosaurus Rex 
, according to a comparison of their bone structures and DNA 
analysis.
And dinosaurs obviously laid eggs millions of years before chickens or birds generally came into existence.
The chicken or the egg question is obviously something that necessitates precision thinking. This might be where a step by step exploration of the related terms and concepts might actually help resolve the issue. 
Are you wanting to dispute the fact that dinosaurs laid eggs 
before chicken?
Or are you simply saying that we need precision thinking when it comes to dealing with these types of question? In which case, I completely agree.
Nope. I cannot provide any arguments against.
And I’m also quite happy to leave the question : “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” unresolved.
It could be. But there is also a why? that follows naturally from exploring with attention any particular content of consciousness. Generally speaking, one’s reaction isn’t born from the present situation, but from the past. In giving attention to the reaction it is natural that it should flower, show its hidden content, which is from the past. Not as a form of analysis, but just because of what the content itself contains and reveals as it is being watched.
It could be. But we haven’t been talking about awareness “disrupting” the psyche. We have been talking about awareness passively observing the psyche as it presently is - the reactions, the frustrations, the feelings, etc - without judging these movements of the mind. Do you not feel that such a passive awareness/observation is possible?
Tough luck! It has been resolved 
Even before the existence of dinosaurs, marine life thrived by laying eggs. So eggs predate chickens by millions and millions of years. This is not a controversial fact.
It struck me that he said that there has to be a perception that “freedom is essential”. The freedom to wander freely in ourself “without motive or purpose”
Sure - the only question that might remain is as follows :
Either the chap that posed the original question : “which came first?” was not aware that other oviparous animals existed before chickens appeared on the scene (in which case : question posed due to lack of data - thus resolved : egg came first)
Or the questioner was referring to chicken eggs rather than any old eggs (in which case the chicken came first) https://www.newscientist.com/question/came-first-chicken-egg/
What has chicken and eggs got to do with wandering freely in oneself?
Shouldn’t all that be in the ‘egghead’ thread?
2 Likes
In which case the question is really “Which came first, the chicken or the kind of egg which can only be laid by a chicken (as distinct from its junglefowl ancestors)?”
The answer is in the question already. Clearly chicken eggs can only come into existence once there are chicken to lay them.
But anyway, to get back to the point of the analogy:
Which comes first, the awareness of a reaction, or the question “why?” (concerning the reaction)?
As with the chicken egg question (as it is phrased above), the answer is in the question: if there is no awareness of the reaction, then there can be no question asked about it.
One must first become aware of one’s reactions (in relationship). This is what the thread is looking into.
1 Like
It is possible - It seems obvious that I can notice, become aware that I’m feeling certain emotions - and that this awareness might not provoke any immediate reaction in terms of narrative thought or judgemental emotions.
Are we saying that anyone who’s genuinely interested in the human experience, and has understood the theory of self (as presented by buddhism or K) has been freed?