We are. Despite being a seemingly obvious fact, I agree it is important to state it so that we’re all on the same page.
I was responding to the implications that I kept hearing (though maybe no one was making them) that direct perception is a myth, and/or that “true” insight meant that the “self” process stopped functioning forevermore.
Direct perception is a myth for the conditioned mind. But if the conditioned mind is open to the possibility that it may not be mythical, but actual, it may be possible to find out.
that “true” insight meant that the “self” process stopped functioning forevermore.
If by “true” insight you mean total insight, it does mean that “the “self” process stopped functioning forevermore”, because the brain has undergone a material change. a radical reconfiguration.
I don’t see any fundamental difference between an open or closed mind - as far as conditioning goes. They are both closed.
This is an agreed upon image of total insight. Is it not more actionable in terms of our inquiry here to remain totally with the fact that the mind is entirely conditioned rather than speculate on what it would mean if that were not the case. That is really hard to do, don’t get me wrong. It may even be impossible.
The mind perhaps needs to be stunned (exhausted?) into silence; it cannot be cajoled.
Either we are believing in magic - ie. something that defies our understanding of the world - which is blind faith. Or we must say what we mean.
The only way I can make the claim (of an instantaneous material reconfiguration of the brain) work/make sense is by saying that it is a change in functionality of the material structures - the structures do not change, but are the same. In the sense that a bamboo pole can be a weapon, or a fishing rod.
The processes no longer serve fear but love?
Quantum mechanics defies my understanding, but I don’t call it “magic”, (though it may as well be).
The only way I can make the claim (of an instantaneous material reconfiguration of the brain) work/make sense is by saying that it is a change in functionality of the material structures - the structures do not change, but are the same. In the sense that a bamboo pole can be a weapon, or a fishing rod.
The processes no longer serve fear but love?
Yes.
The fluidity of the brain has been beautifully described by Daniel C. Dennett and I also came across it again in Fixing my Gaze. The physical structure is formed by the brain cells on the one hand and by the connections between them on the other, and it is these connections that are very flexible, so that traumas to the brain cells can still restore functions through completely new connections, and there is no age limit on the latter.
Yes, that’s what the neuroscientists call “plasticity”.
What we think of as “plastic” is something rigid, unyielding until it breaks. We are plastic in this sense of the word, but also in this sense: “capable of being deformed continuously and permanently in any direction without rupture”.
Yes, give it anothher word and changing the meaning that’s common to avoid seriousness. 
I’m more serious about the use of the language than I am about accusing others of avoiding “seriousness”.
Another common human behaviour,
To take a simple remark about general human behaviour as a personal accusation, how transparent is that to provoke a conflict.
Your “simple remark” was the provocation.
That’s interesting that you didn’t find that quality of freshness in his talks - for me, it was one of the things that I found most communicative about them. I also understood this to be an outward demonstration of the emptying of the consciousness that he spoke of.
Patricia,
So, can the self observe only the movement of itself - without theorizing?
Can the self actually stay with one fact - to the end, without drifting from one idea about the fact to another idea about the fact or that of an idea about another fact? In other words, can the self actually “attend” to one fact, without creating an idea about the fact? Does the self have to empty the entire contents of its consciousness before just staying with one fact?
The teaching, as a whole, is “fresh”. But in K’s public talks, he was repeating or revising what he had been saying.
Depending on context, this may refer to the theme of fear as the driver of the self; or the fact that bias/motivation occults freedom and clarity.
Your guess is as good as anyone’s…
I did find this after a short search, about this conflict between James and Patricia. I think it is important to relook at some of these incidents and with time and distance, to see if anything has changed on anybodys side. After reading the forum since April if anything has changed, any new insights regarding these interactions or do you still feel the same way?
Patricia, you seem like a very insightful poster, just as Charley is, but somehow the two of you and a few others strongly react to James, and see his posts as bullying or harassment or attacks. I am not sure why and think this is a misunderstanding about his inquiring mind.
We are discussing some of these issues in the Relationship thread of Charleys and the Conflict thread James started recently, if you have anything to share.
Hello David - you have withdrawn your post. The reply is here regardless.
The ‘relationships’ thread that you recommended above (in your withdrawn posting which was emailed) is an absolute demonstration of what is occurring today.
In any discussion group it is of no concern what anyone else has or hasn’t seen or understood.
The inquiry is only ever about understanding the movement of self (in oneself) in the moment of discussion.
All else is the action of self.
However, it is critical for everyone in any group to share an insight into establishing a solid technical ground (clarification of meanings of words - overall willingness to find out - ending personal opinions).
Only this allows for the destruction of verbal psychological images.
Without this group understanding, the self will always take over.
Isn’t it ironic that the teaching of K appears to have degenerated into entertainment for the self?
Hello Patricia,
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I thought you were not interested, so I deleted my post. I was able to re-create the post, once I saw that you did respond.
That is a good point, to only be concerned with the movement of self.
Yes, it is very ironic and yet not too surprising. For the self is so deceptive and sneaky and finds innumerable ways of taking over.
Dear David -
So what is the correct action?