← Back to Kinfonet

The inner and the outer

This is the continuation of an earlier thread: Integrating Physiology and Psychology

Klaus: Consciousness is inside, the inside, the content, the mentally processed, the mental shadow of the perceived, stored, accumulated. Awareness is outside, perception, the entire universe. Awareness is where I am not. KFA German forum

My own consciousness is composed entirely of processed memory. This is the same for you and for anyone else who is looking at this question. So our inner consciousness is put together by thought. This consciousness then talks about something called awareness which seems to be separate from and superior to anything to do with memory. Just see what is happening: instead of facing the bleak fact of its own impotence, thought is again busy in inventing something separate from itself towards which it can then move and aim for. In other words, awareness becomes a spiritual destination. And this processing is at the heart of the mess we make of our lives because it keeps thought at the centre of things. Can this processing stop altogether?

Hi Paul,

And the trouble is that it can succeed in reaching this state, and then it may even believe it is free - even saying that it feels free - and that is why K called such a statement “abomination” !!! It may even conclude that truth is something relative. Behind all of this is the will to change (oneself or others).

Yes, sir, it is a very tricky process that happens inside the head over years. If the mind is not open to the outer, then the conflict is the only feedback to come out of the pattern of thought process.

Psychological thought moves towards pleasure and away from pain. The devising of a better (i.e. less painful, more pleasurable) way to be is its dominant activity. And it becomes very adept at this over time. What it doesn’t see or fathom is the extent to which its attempted escapes from pain actually end up fueling the pain. Or perhaps it sees this, but doesn’t care?

Klaus: Can this processing stop altogether? That seems to me to be the crucial question. And it only makes sense if it refers to this conversation of ours: Can this processing stop - now, in this conversation? Can the thinking face “the bleak fact its own impotence” without taking a step further, without moving even a millimeter away from this fact? Can we do that - now? Well, obviously, thinking can’t answer that question. KFA German forum

Which means immediately we can throw away every possible answer and explanation.

But is the throwing away of answers and explanations also part of the processing? Or is it a different kind of action?

Giving the answer is still the part of processing, I felt that I may not get conflicted by the conclusion I given you as an answer.

Viswa, can you leave out everything you feel and conclude? That’s what is being asked of us.

Yes, as is the conclusion “thinking can’t answer that question.” All thought-driven, within the system.

Perhaps it isn’t careless but intentionally self-perpetuating, despite the pain. Better to continue under any conditions than to end.

Yes, obsessed with remaining in control, able if needed to turn pain into pleasure, endlessly inventive.

Committed, determined, incorrigible, and mendacious, but inventive?

Indefatigably! We’re all writing, directing, and acting in our own epic movie!

Yes, but there’s nothing new, interesting, or inventive about our writing and directing. It’s the same old thing, updated. It’s what we’ve been doing for the last 6000 years, and look where it’s got us.

By endlessly inventive I mean able to endlessly make things up and then convince oneself or others they are true. Think: QAnon.

I am not at all sure. It all depends on our approach to this problem, which becomes very interesting as we look at it together. Because is perception within the system? Is perception a process? And what is the relationship of perception to love?

Earlier on, you suggested that thought may see what it is doing but yet it doesn’t really care about the mess it is making, the pain it is causing. That is why we said that thought is an impotent force: it can manufacture all kinds of psychological scenarios, but it cannot solve a single psychological problem. Now do we see this as the bare, unadorned fact? Or do we see just our own versions of it?

Our own versions and variations keep the problem alive. But a direct perception of the bare, exposed fact changes the nature of any problem.

Paul

ah, love,… compassion, right?

passion, from the root word passio-, sorrow, to suffer…
seeing the sorrow of another, opening up one’s heart to “the other” who is in sorrow fills a heart with compassion, love… relationship is a key of utmost importance…, right?

Interesting.

Thought can’t solve psychological problems because psychological problems are created and sustained by thought. But thought can understand this, not fully perhaps, but quite vividly. (Indeed that’s what’s happening right now.)

So thought has a role to play in the process of psychological problem solving. It can discern the pattern that leads to the creation and stoking of these problems. And it can understand, intellectually (thought’s natural habitat and dominion), that its efficacy in solving the problem is limited. Perhaps it can even prepare the soil from which that which can solve the problem might emerge?

So what is the relationship of perception to love?

That’s all we ever seem to do: prepare for a future state of bliss. Isn’t this the essence of our impotence, that we put the solution to our greatest fears and problems into an imagined future? Therefore I am not sure that there is anything at all to understand.

A direct perception of anything is the end of the problem of indirect, distorted perception. So are you speaking theoretically, or is direct perception real for you?