Part of our struggle here in an online text-based medium is sharing together the same meaning of the words that we use.
As we have discussed elsewhere, the primary words that we usually use in discussions on Kinfonet - such as awareness, attention, love, intelligence, self, innocence, religion, knowledge, perception, suffering, etc - are often understood in different ways by each one of us, and so a lot of miscommunication arises through the different understandings or emphases in meaning we each give to these words.
Communication can only happen when in a conversation we are using the same primary words in the same way and with the same shared meaning. Otherwise we are always talking past each other.
Naturally we do not like to be imposed upon by another’s particular way of understanding a word, so we need to discuss the matter without authority so as to reach a shared meaning of a word.
It is also a fact that when we discuss a primary word on a thread it takes so much energy to clarify what is involved in that word, that to bring in too many other primary words becomes a distraction, because there is only so much attention or bandwidth that we can have for a single conversation. Which is why it is important to limit ourselves to one or two primary words per thread.
Isn’t this a reasonable suggestion?
The word ‘communicate’ means “to make common”. That is, all words have to do either with our shared senses, or with our shared human consciousness. So if there is any confusion about these matters, we should be able to clear it up relatively easily. If we are talking about something that goes beyond both the senses and our shared human consciousness, then we need to use words more tentatively, without making assumptions in meaning.
Part of the meaning that we give to the primary words we use on Kinfonet will naturally be influenced by our understanding of the way Krishnamurti used the same words. As explained elsewhere, this is because, for example, the way Krishnamurti used the word ‘attention’ is not the way that neuroscientists use the word ‘attention’. For neuroscientists attention means concentration, which is the precise opposite of Krishnamurti’s meaning of the word. Similarly the way Krishnamurti used words such as intelligence, love, knowledge, are distinctive and cannot be merely carried over from the way they are used ordinarily.
So if people feel that Krishnamurti is very mistaken in giving a certain meaning to primary words, then it is that person’s responsibility to point out where they feel that Krishnamurti’s meaning is mistaken, or where they feel others have misunderstood Krishnamurti’s meaning, etc, and to explain their own meaning.
Do people feel that what has been shared here is invalid or mistaken? What else do others feel is involved in clear communication?