And who is this ‘me’? Does he have a real name?
The body-mind who goes by the name nobody here.
And you think K and Bohm were “guided by an idea or view or theory”
That’s quite an assumption. Can you substantiate it? It seems to me they were posing questions and exploring.
1 Like
I didn’t say that. All I can really do is speculate, but as this is not a forum that welcomes speculation, I’ll resist.
Does he have a real name? How can I reach him if he has no real name?
I am only frustrated by the idiocy of baseless speculation - meaning the confused idea that all claims are equal.
I enjoy speculation - however, biases against whatever, are commonplace in humans. Its part of experience, trauma, and incomprehension.
Isn’t a matter of where the ‘speculation’ is taking place? The way I’m seeing it is that with ‘technical’ thinking, speculation can be absolutely necessary. Imagining what could go wrong in a project to avoid it etc…But where it has no place is in the ‘psychological’ where ‘occupation’ , to use the K word, has no place. Where ‘thinking’, which is the past, has no place. The mind occupied by the past cannot fully meet the present. Which is not to say that unnecessary speculation won’t arise there, it will, but it need not be “chosen”.
It need not be “minded”.
1 Like
This is a different matter - I’m just complaining about the difficulty of trying to explore an idea with someone so open minded (or slippery and confused) that we have to end up debating whether the earth is flat or not.
Speculating, or following an idea where it leads, together, is actually an excellent tool for communal enquiry. Intellectual inquiry of course.
However, psychological or emotional blocks in our worldview may be highlighted through intellectual inquiry.
My view is that views (claims, speculations) are like maps. None are the territory, but some point more accurately to the territory than others.
He values his privacy and hopes you would understand and respect that. He is happy to explore the desire for privacy.
Mac
IF there is a river of thought / memory flowing more or less constantly through the mind, can the mind be so sensitive to that movement that it can watch it choicelessly and not be ‘carried’ along with it? Can there be a ‘stepping out’ of that stream so the mind remains empty and open to the present?
I think that what we are seeing in Ukraine and all the wars that have happened in the past, is the result of not having realized this possibility in us: the mind not permanently immersed in what has gone before, the past, aka the ‘self’.
Yes, if the mind is as interested in what it does choicelessly as what it does deliberately.
Psychological attachment seems to be the problem. You identify with the past (personal or collective) and desire to resurrect it, fix it, atone for it, prolong it, annihilate it, whatever!
To what extent can you be immersed in your psychological past without being attached to it? Observe it dispassionately, scientifically, like a botanist studying a plant cell.
K has referred to this situation as the “state of observation “ or the “watcher” a state of not- “choosing “, just watching…I think the point is and it’s quite radical, that the ‘self’, IS the immersion, You are the memory stream. So we’re not talking about one fragment in the ‘stream’ watching the others, that is already our situation; the thinker apart from the thoughts. The observer separate from the observed.
1 Like
Yes - It would seem so. I would stress the sensitivity part, rather than any idea of making an effort to watch something in particular (thoughts in this case). This sensitivity to thought awakens when we have understood the inherent suffering in the process of effort and self-centeredness. We notice the thoughts more.
And the liberation from the need to keep thinking also happens through this same understanding that thought is its own motor - the maker of its own nightmares.
Both the propensity to notice thought, and its ending when noticed, arise from understanding the process of thought & self. Which in my opinion can start as an intellectual and emotional understanding.
1 Like
Where? Here or in private?
So the root cause of Ukraine mass murders is jealousy. Jealousy starts in childhood and continues throughout life unless is resolved and eliminated. otherwise we will continue having wars after wars as we have been…
Deference to authority has got be a close second.
Fear and confusion must be in there somewhere too.
Strong belief in our beliefs would seem essential.
Inability to think carefully and speculate adequately must play a part too (aka stupidity)
Here is good for me.
What then are we talking about? Who or what does the watching, who or what is watched?