Macdougdoug,
Thank you for your take, maybe you’re right, though for the purpose it doesn’t make a difference to me. I don’t know about animals in general, as to small children that hasn’t been my experience at least as far as I can remember, maybe it is just an occasional matter. Anyway I’m quite sure that the same way we inherit physical features, so do we inherit psychological ones.
me neither - I was just repeating the findings of scientists. But selfishness is also very powerful from a young age, for sure.
**So, we apparently both feel “the house is on fire.” But it seems that that part of my response was ignored, in favor of this response. From over here, the nature of this ‘fire’ appears to be basically a ‘wrong significance’ that has been given to ‘psychological thought’, by thought.
For those of us here, that are interested in this invitation from K and Bohm to observe our ‘responses’ in relationship, to be ‘proprioceptive’ of thought, to be aware of the role thought is playing in relationship, to observe the nature of this movement we call thought, then one might think that doing this observation would be the priority. To perhaps observe why such importance is being given to psychological thought, the assumptions, opinions, and beliefs, associated with a ‘me’ or identity.
So, the response from you starts with, “No, you are quibbling over words.” Is that thought-story what I’m really doing, or is that an analytical assumption the brain is making according to the past memory accumulation? Is it an interpretation according to the known? Is it a ‘looking without the word’ as K suggested? And if I responded by saying, “No, I simply described what I was seeing. I’m not concerned about word usage.” Would there still be an attachment to the thought assumption? Would the assumption, the words, continue being given the elevated false significance of truth?
Then you suggested, “You turned it into latching on to something I said.” Is this response what actually occurred, or, a psychological assumption?" A conditioned thought interpretation?
Do you or I really know the actual internal intentions of the other person? And even if we could do that, can we ever put the actuality into concepts? Is the ‘word’ ever the thing? Is this ‘thought-caricature’ the actuality, or a divisive psychological judgment?
And again, what’s the priority, addressing the ‘house on fire’, or making psychological assumptions about another human being, based on the conditioning?
What leads humans to focus on the “person,” versus the conditioning? The conditioning or “fire” that they suggest is the urgency? Is it the interpretation the brain is making that questioning a suggestion of “mine” is a threat to the ego-structure? Is this what makes the words seem so important, the unconscious belief that the thoughts are “Paul’s” thoughts or “Howard’s” thoughts. Do these patterns of thought belong to a “me?”
K: Your consciousness is not different from mine. It may have little variations and modifications, a little more expansion or contraction, but essentially consciousness is yours as well as mine.
from Dialogue 13 with Allan W. Anderson in San Diego, California, 26 February 1974
**If we see that we’ve all been conditioned to believe in a false centre, which generally leads humanity to falsely believe there’s a “chooser” inside the head, separate from the content, a.k.a. an ‘observer separate from the observed’, doesn’t judging the messenger reflect the same confusion in consciousness, of an observer separate from the observed? “You,” the “observer,” are just “quibbling over the words.”
Is this how the conditioning shifts attention away from observing what thought is doing, by shifting the attention to the image of the “other?” “It’s the ‘other’ that’s the problem, not the conditioning.”
What happens to the observation of the nature of the conditioning, when the focus shifts to “judging the other?” Are we still observing what is?
And when I say “if,” I’m not saying anyone ‘does’ see this. I’m simply addressing anyone who feels they’ve seen this. I’m not saying anything is or isn’t true. I’m simply asking: If anyone really feels they have seen this falseness, then why would they still judge any human being “personally?”
And when any of us make assertions like, “you are quibbling over words,” or, “you’re latching on to X, Y, or Z,” aren’t these ‘personal judgments’, focusing on the fictional observer, separate from the observed, the “image of the other?”
And isn’t the “fire” also this compulsion to compare or judge? And are we aware that implying that someone be other than they are, is judgment, or violence?
For example, isn’t “you are quibbling” a judgment, a subtle form of violence?
1 Like
Can we expect others to act and think the way we would like?
And even if people should act and think the way we expect them to, is it possible and appropriate to browbeat them into submission through the sheer force of the written word?
One thing is for sure - thats not anyone’s definition of dialogue, nor is it “exploring together”.
First listen, without pain, without a center. There is no second.
1 Like
I don’t know Jess but I think that we learn to exploit others, as well as to be greedy, etc. We do it because we can. The animals don’t have the mental capability?
One thing that comes to mind is that when exchanging with someone, is to be aware of the words and the intention thought is putting behind them. Are they meant to hurt? Are they barbed? Do they belittle what the other has posted? If there is an awareness of any of that, then they can be exchanged for less destructive words or phrases.
1 Like
Tricky stuff - it is really difficult to accept and see our errors. And so much easier to see the fallacies of others.
And sadly if you point out my errors, all I see is you pointing out that I am a fool.
Hello. yes, to what you say at #64 and #67.
Instead of “seeing” the facts on how one comes to a discussion and clearly latches on to what someone says, evidently suggestive of a lure, clearly begging for support from others, while craftily preparing page long “comparative” analysis’s of the person, marinated with suggestive innuendos, indicative of colossal violence, which seems to be their “conditioning”….so instead of coming to discussions with what seems to be for purposes of refining their “violent conditioned responses”, presumably for purposes of practice which they think might help them in their aspiration of being a wannabe guru……instead of all that, they should consider listening to their own advice and instead use “observation” to identify these kinds of ugliness within oneself/ “person”, instead of reacting violently.
1 Like
Yes but thought/self is the actor and the ‘thinker’ is the ‘re-actor’…and that’s all just a kind of trick. The thinker is the fool and the thinker doesn’t actually exist!
And ‘putting out ‘ the fire 
is dying to that “centre”…yes?
Evidently it isn’t enough. 
. The violent games continue even after you apologized for something that you haven’t done. I wonder what is this colossal emotion to continue ranting after someone is walking away? Is it desire to be right? Fear of being wrong? “Personal” insecurity"? Luring to continue? Perhaps it’s all of it and more.
Seems like the house is burning…our own house that is… not some “fictitious” ideological house. Unable to bear it, face it, and accept responsibility, it seems the person continues to make it an ideological problem and looks for a metaphysical resolution.
**That appears to be the case. A dying to the false value of truth being given to the self-image, and the entire collection of psychological thoughts stored in the brain as “my thoughts.” An insight into the limited nature of this entire collection of abstract psychological thought-imagery.
Can we inquire a bit into the ‘dying’ or ‘emptying’ aspect of what is called for here? Is it by being aware of what we think and feel, that that is enough to reveal the falsity of it? Does something else have to take place? If I hate others, for example, can that be emptied or died to, just by seeing the hatred or does something else have to be present? Does it have to be a realization that ‘I’ am only ‘hating’ (judging) an image formed of the other and that that image is false because it is, of course, partial…and can only ever be partial?
**Hello Dan - Sounds great. I’ll tell you where this started for me, which points to what you’re asking. I read Socrates in college, and he seemed to be a pretty wise fellow. So I was curious about this issue of ‘know thyself’ that he had apparently suggested. Years later, having some degree of leisure, I decided to explore this, but I didn’t know how to do it. The second book I tried, in order to get some clues about how to know myself, turned out to be K’s Freedom From the Known. On the very first page, K made this suggestion:
K: For centuries we have been spoon-fed by our teachers, by our authorities, by our books, our saints. We say, ‘Tell me all about it - what lies beyond the hills and the mountains and the earth?’ and we are satisfied with their descriptions, which means that we live on words and our life is shallow and empty. We are secondhand people.
**Upon reading this pointer, and observing myself, it was immediately clear that this fellow had described me perfectly. There was a seeing that basically I had never really questioned the things I thought were true. So that seeing created the necessity to observe life directly for myself, to not settle for theories or beliefs, from anyone. Aside from practical situations like going to the doctor or dentist, or having an “expert” fix your car.
So, if you and I are going to really ‘see the truth’, it can’t be done by accepting any second-hand description.
Next, how can any of us see that something is false? Don’t we have to ‘see it for ourselves’? By observing what is actually occurring? Can thought, which is always a limited abstraction of a past experience ever reveal what’s present now? Will a word or concept ever be ‘what is actually occurring now’? Will the word or description ever be the actual manifestation it is meant to simply ‘refer to or point to’? Will the word apple, ever be the actual fruit?
So, we can rule out words or concepts revealing the actual. All they reveal is ideas or concepts, not what they point to. We would have to look at what the words point to. If I want to discover who I actually am, to know myself, this requires observing my self as I actually am, each moment, without the word, not trying to “figure it out with conditioned thought.” Not analyzing what is present.
So, what else other than a choiceless awareness of what is actually present could possibly reveal what is true or false?
I’ll stop there, and ask you, What is this ‘I’ that you suggest would be ‘hating’? Do you mean the human being?
This gets at where the core confusion in thought is. This ‘I’, this ‘thought’ or ‘idea’, is confused for the thinking/feeling human being. The ‘I’, or ‘observer’ is a thought, or more accurately, a collection of psychological thoughts. And a thought can’t “hate.” An ‘I’ can’t hate. It’s just an idea, an image, a “self-image.” And images aren’t an entity with the capacity to hate. The human being, responding to conditioned thought , is what engages in the action we call hating. The action of hating reflects incoherence in thought.
Again, we’re looking, not accepting descriptions for truth. That’s the suggestion anyway. I’m just using words to point to what is seen. The words, the descriptions, aren’t the described.
1 Like
I was being rather reserved. There is much more than just quibbling going on. There is a not so subtle form of intellectual bullying taking place, using K as your crony. I leave you to it.
2 Likes
Sometimes one gets angry with another person. When one tries to cover it up with words, the anger is still there. So I would rather say to someone, ‘You are a fool,’ and get it out of the way. But when one keeps on pointing out to them all their various faults, it is ultimately only one’s own foolishness that gets displayed. It stops being a sudden flash of violence and becomes something even more destructive.
Get it out of the way for whom?
Personally I try to reserve the word “fool” for advanced beings and people that are ripe enough that the description might actually help. 
I do agree that self righteous violence is pretty horrible. (I too have been guilty of slam dunking obvious idiots online)
I have been following the work of liberal do-gooders that are trying to address the problem of dialogue and communication between tribes (eg. Trump vs Anti-trump) and one thing that seems apparent is that facts neither change minds nor bridge gaps. (It seems that the more intelligent a person is, the more they can squish contrarian facts into their worldview)
Rule no 1: You cant force someone to see the light (especially right away or on your terms) acceptation of disagreement is essential.
Rule no 2: Try to find out the basis upon which you do agree - then work from there.
Rule no 3 : The bridge is more important than the conclusions reached
1 Like
How does a secondhand person practise choiceless awareness?
Dan,
You say we learn to exploit others, etc… I think here you are using ‘learn’ in the sense of appropriating. Yes, it’s true, but I’m afraid it happens because we choose it, the same way we reject many other behaviours. Maybe it’s a matter of your nature driving you or an image you have already because it will be easier for you to adjust to the environment where you’re living. Krishnamurti engaged in many dialogues with teachers of his schools just discussing how to bring out such prejudices to the surface and by exposing them to the students helping them use intelligence and order in their lives. Just a short excerpt of one of these dialogues (in ‘A flame of learning’): ‘T -‘It seems we’d have to start with being completely honest with each other.’ K - We are being now. I won’t go into that for the moment. Honesty is the most dangerous word. All I’m saying is, are you interested and responsible to see if you realize the world is you and you are the world? And that one of the factors in this monstrous world, of which you are, is violence, psychological violence, from which breeds external violence? How do you help yourself who are the world, and the student to be free of this violence?’
1 Like
Not sure about this. What do you mean? I have chosen to be a deluded fool?