← Back to Kinfonet

The free flow of communicating together

It is obvious, isn’t it that people are capable of talking together. We use language, knowledge, memory, imagination, and create self expression. There will be various levels of communication. Some will engage with the others words, while some will maintain their own agenda. There will be those who can selectively engage with the others words while also maintaining their own agenda. Basically this interactive communication can be said to be the Ego. And it is not necessarily an us and them approach. It can involve anyone in a discussion, and each be using, or reacting to the Ego.
Can we see this interaction, called a discussion, where the respondents are adding knowledge, memory, etc, to a verbal communication? It is really an interactive exchange and accumulation of information. It is not an unusual way of communicating, and can be received well or badly depending on the Ego. Mostly we assume this is the right and correct approach to communication. Any questioning of this approach is dismissed as unhelpful and uncooperative, if not a plain nuisance, diverging from the discussion.
But, let’s diverge from using the Ego, right? To say it is the Ego is not to condemn it, but to make it clear. Of course it might be difficult to see the way the Ego is acting. The point is, don’t take this to be a discussion about the Ego, for example. Pointing out the Ego, is to say, let’s be aware of it, and not use it. Let’s not take the communication to be an exchange of information, ideas, etc, but a sharing of the fact of a common condition, in the immediate. To start adding information, knowledge, ideas, about the subject, as it might be a helpful contribution to a subject, is a divergence.
Communicating, is a common sharing, and the basis of this is not information, knowledge, etc. This basis is something to discover free from an exercise of selectively adding information, knowledge etc. I, you, have a mind, and this mind is one whole experience, not dependent on a selective use of words and ideas, nor is it defined by any word. Otherwise you will be thinking about what he or she said, and recollecting your thoughts on the subject, and trying to give a verbal response, which is really just a mechanical discussion or chatting, and not freely communicating together.

Psychological analysis is a game.

It seems people want to have a chit-chat and keep their own way of thinking. They always put what someone says into a framework of their own thinking. Then they try to work their way through this false comprehension, trying to get the other to explain, undo, reconcile, this false comprehension of their own making.