That’s true, but we sometimes have a bit of a problem agreeing on what he was pointing to. Still, it’s interesting to explore the teachings here and listen to what we all understand.
lol
( 20 character limit )
Do you ever read a contribution here that you find interesting United78?
1 Like
**One thing that can be observed in what this comment points to, is that whatever people agree to will only be the words, the descriptions, not the thing. Agreement or disagreement is about the descriptions, not the actuality. Observing ‘what is’, is about the seeing, not the thought descriptions.
K: You know, that’s one of our peculiarities as human beings: we agree and disagree. What is the need to agree or disagree? When you see something to be actual, there is no agreement or disagreement, it is so. But we don’t see anything clearly, we’re all rather confused and out of this confusion arises agreement and disagreement. - Madras Jan. 1985
1 Like
Identity is “a moment to moment” phenomenon.
1 Like
Offer your condolences to someone who needs them. They’re wasted on me.
1 Like
Why has my post at 61 been made “hidden”? The content was simply noting observations, and wasn’t seeking any responses. The tone was no different from what OP or any one else uses here. In fact most of the words and phrases used were highlights of what OP is known to use.
Edit: Will appreciate a public reply to a public query, rather than a private reply like last time. Thanks.
I would say that it’s imperative.
2 Likes
Sorry to interrupt. May I provide my opinion?
Wow. You could see who hate whom - in this textual discussions? - If it so. Marvelous.
So - why would someone (i.e. ‘I’) - hate another person (i.e. another ‘I’)?
Shall we discuss that here - or in another discussion?
Sorry, this one doesn’t deal with opinions but with facts that can be substantiated, Regarding discussing with me, :-), i know you have been trying and want it, but you are better off discussing with others as you seem to be doing. Thank you though.
So - you are restricting yourself to learn together - and ‘happy’ with a belief in ‘what you know’.
Ok - fine. Now i can see too - ‘who’ hates ‘who’ 
Parroting phrases like “learn together” contradicts the facts of your postings. The facts of your posting history not only point to the instructive nature of your postings, but also to your own claims of being here for purposes of ‘showing the light’ to others, on several occasions. In light of such discrepancies I do not find you credible to waste my energy, effort, and time in going back and forth. Which is not indicative of “hate”.
If at any point it’s factually evident you understand what learning together means (other than simply parroting catch phrases), this one will be happy to join with you or anyone else in the joys of looking together.
Re a belief in what I know: One doubts you understand the fallacies in that statement since that has never even come into the picture, but I understand you have to pull something out of the air as a bait, which is understandable and expected.
If you have an ‘image’ of ‘me’ as ‘teacher’/‘guru’ - i’m sorry for that .
I saw some ‘beliefs’ and I tried to bring out from that ‘beliefs’ - but doesn’t worked out or i may be wrong. I’m sorry for that.
I learned many things coming here - from these discussions - from many persons.
We can put aside all our images - and we can start a discussion afresh about ‘hate’.
I doesn’t know what it is - and you can show me too - me and many persons will learn from that.
Are you ‘ok’ with that?
I have no image of you but observations derived from your postings and your factual conduct, which will be considered facts. This one doubts if you or anyone else will be able to put aside these images just like that. But if that is possible then it’s yet to be seen and verified. If that happens then I will let you know. But until then I will have to pass. I think we are done here for now. Good luck.
1 Like
The problem is when you think you are observing “what is” but it is actually your own version of “what is”. Unfortunately, this is very common in the world we live in. If one is happy with one’s own version of the truth and thinking that one is in contact with “what is”, there is little need to engage in dialogue, explore issues, discuss and exchange impressions. For one who is already in possession of the truth, dialogue is a closed door.
**Hello Sean - Well, that all pretty much matches my own observations. But I would just say “we think” we don’t need to dialogue, due to the conditioning. Whereas, the house is actually burning, and we do need to dialogue. K or Bohm dialogue is just a short way to say, let’s really listen and look together at our lives. Dialogue appears to be only as complicated as we make it. If it’s not working, then we can look at that together.
The first thing that comes to mind is to have dialogues with those who are interested. Second, if we notice that we’re looking at a “version” of what is, that is being ‘distorted by conditioning’, then that’s something we can all observe closer. To my observation, one of the great clues of a “distorted view” is comparison or judgment.
K: So you have said comparison is one of the factors of violence - right? Will you go into it in yourself and say it is my responsibility not to compare? Or see the whole movement of comparison and therefore end it?
**Comparison is violent not just because it’s divisive, but because it’s the illusion of expecting the person to be other than they actually are. It’s comparison that perpetuates ‘becoming’. We’re literarily propagating becoming when we expect people to be other than they are. This doesn’t mean we can’t look and learn together, by observing what’s happening in our relationships, to observe the divisive conditioning together.
Evaluating the ‘other’ is the “me and the other” false division, upon which all of the ‘ego-reactions’ emerge. Clearly there are different human beings, but we confuse this imagery of “me,” and all of the following added identities, musician, father, Christian, American, etc., for the actual beings. When we think we see “other,” or “Howard,” we’re actually imagining the actual being. It’s not observation free of the thought distortion, it’s ‘thought projection’. In pure perception there’s no Howard or Sean, there’s only the beings. Probably the most obvious clue of a distorted “version of what is” is this knee-jerk reaction of judging people personally. This defensive reaction appears to be the core nature of the ego-structure. Due to the illusion of it being an ‘actual observer’, separate from the observed, this conditioning leads the brain to project the image that there’s a “chooser” inside the head of everyone else, that “knows better,” and is choosing to not behave in the way the ego-structure defines as “what should be.”
The fact is, whatever thought says it is, isn’t. Which Korzybski, the human with that name, then rephrased as, “The map is not the territory,” which K then rephrased as, “The word is not the thing.” That phrase points to the fact that human beings aren’t the images of a ‘me’ or ‘other’, projected in thought, inside anyones head. The identity IS the images. But a human being is not the thought-imagery. However, the thought-imagery, the cultural conditioning, is actually running the human being, and projecting the thought that it’s “me” doing it, as long as the thought-identity is not seen as merely abstract limited thought imagery.
Bohm: Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives the false information that you are running it, that you are the one that controls thought, whereas actually thought is the one that controls each of us. - Thought As A System
K: Why do you have an image about yourself?
Is it possible not to have an image at all about yourself, or about another, naturally? And if there is no image, isn’t that true freedom? Ah, you don’t see it. - Truth and Actuality
Bohm: We have this picture of someone inside us who is given all this information and then decides to have the intention to do something based on that. I’m suggesting however, that that is not so. - Thought As A System
K: You are all somebodies. You all want to be something, either professionally, or you have delusions of grandeur; you want to achieve something or become something, realize something, fulfill. Which is all respectability. We are saying that in total silence, there is nothing, you are nothing. - The Krishnamurti Reader
Who is OP?..
Closed because it’s locked from the inside by those carrying on a dialogue without fear of losing their minds.
Can the mind be “lost”? 
Temporarily…