Do you mean that I want the situation to go away because I don’t like it - or there is something in the situation itself that calls for its own destruction/resolution?
The second case being more in line with the definition of a puzzle/riddle/conundrum.
Unless the situation includes me - in which case it is my desire that calls for what I want.
Jimmy thinks that some error in communication has occurred, and finds this interesting or amusing.
Are you saying that this conjures up some psychological angst in us? Or that it should at least worry Jimmy a bit more?
Hello Nobody, I think this is another good question. My understanding is the following:
Krishnamurti pointed out that the content of thought was past knowledge and experience. This in itself seems a remarkable discovery. He also pointed out that thought acts as a filter distorting the present moment by bringing past experience and knowledge to bear on what is actually happening in the present. For example, if I look at a tree I don’t actually see the tree but my interpretation of the tree based on my knowledge and experience of trees. So thought creates separateness and division.
My understanding above is intellectual and I have just verbalised it. I understand that to move to actually “doing it”, applying this to myself and being free of this constant interpretation, a choiceless awareness and observation of the movement of thought is necessary. At this point, in previous discussions, we often reach a point where there is differing understanding of this application. Obviously, if effort is involved, then this “choicelessness” cannot take place. But is there at times a silent observing and watching of thought which just happens without invitation?
The statement above gives me the impression that one would be involved in some mental narrative, and at the same time be watching that narrative as it takes place.
Which sounds odd.
More the former. Do situations have the agency to call for anything?
1 Like
Neither. I am just trying to show how someone could understand the nature of a ‘problem’ but not do anything to fix/solve it. Some people enjoy conflict. Why fix what gives us pleasure?
Hi Sean. 
Thought sometimes retrieves and works with objects from the distant past, childhood memories, views and values learned in junior high school. Sometimes it works with objects from the more recent past. Sometimes from yesterday, or an hour ago, or a minute ago, a second ago.
Thought can work with objects of distant memory that are probably quite different from the actualities that spawned them. Or it can work with objects that are so recent as to be more or less present.
Can a person’s content of thought be from the present?
If I could join in here, because the misunderstanding of the process (the blindspot) seems a bit easier to address.
The self - and its baggage of knowledge - contains the illusion of accumulation and progress. I base what I know now, on what I knowed previously - my current understanding/interpretation is dependant on my previous understanding.
What I think I am experiencing now is due to what I think is happening - which is due to the world view that I have built up/accumulated.
My present opinions/delusions are based on a solid foundation of understanding/interpretation/delusions from way back (before I was born if we count culture and biology, which we must)
Has Jimmy understood the whole nature of the problem? (which includes him)
Has he understood that there even is a problem?
How could he? - unless we change our current definition :
Or maybe we have a problem with what we see as outside observers of this Jimmy situation?
I’m not sure what you mean by a mental narrative Douglas but surely that would involve thought. I understand choiceless, silent awareness of the movement of thought to take place when thought is absent so there is no naming and no narrative, just observing.
The “choiceless” part is maybe connected to ‘the seeing is the action’. When one becomes aware of inattention, does attention automatically occur?
1 Like
Hello Nobody. I don’t understand this. Can it? I mean, can one observe and there be no recording going on?
OK - so I was reacting to the words : “observation of thought” which always makes me think that the thinking process is being observed as it happens - whereas attention might actually stop or replace the mental chatter.
Is water wet? 
when water falls from the clouds, does it start raining?
This is quite clearly often true. But is it always true? Is there a way of thinking that makes use of objects that exist (that are occurring) in the present moment? This needs to be tried out in the Lab of Self or else it’s just a thought experiment.
I can’t say what Jimmy might experience if he understood the whole nature of the problem, because 1) I’m not Jimmy, and 2) I doubt I’ve ever understood the whole nature of anything.
Yes, Jimmy understands there is a problem, assuming the goal is clear communication.
When I say the objects of thought are drawn from the present I mean they are drawn from what feels like the present moment. This subjective sense of now (the specious present) is usually felt to be about a second, but I think it can be quite a bit longer in certain states of mind.
So the problem of observing and thinking at the same time isn’t in play.
Did that address your response? If not, let me know.
Remember our definition of what a problem is : a perceived state of affairs that I don’t like. (are you still accepting the definition?)
So, at most, Jimmy recognises that the goal of “accurate communication of ideas” has not been achieved. But it doesn’t seem to be a problem for him.
Are you saying that he may also recognise that the situation might constitute a problem for someone else? Or that we feel that there is a problem - because Jimmy should feel chagrined about the situation? Where exactly is the problem?
Jimmy could be feeling a kind of guilty pleasure. He enjoys the miscommunication and at the same time he understands it can cause pain and confusion.
Yes. He sees that X can bring him pleasure and another person pain.
He understands the concept intellectually - but he doesn’t have a problem.
We are going around in circles - maybe we should stop here.
As usual I get the impression that whatever or whoever is choosing the quote of the day is actually addressing some of the debates here - Todays quote seems quite clear regarding this issue of “problems” : https://kinfonet.org/daily_quotes/are-you-aware-not-theoretically-but-actually-that-you-are-in-conflict
Hello again Nobody. I don’t really understand what you mean here. I have always understood that observation is immediate - that there is no space between looking at a tree and the observation of it. The filter of thought is normally also an immediate thing, isn’t it? The naming, interpreting starts as soon as the observation does. What about observation with a silent mind? Is that happening at all?
Nobody is referring to an ongoing scientific and philosophical enquiry into the phenomenology of physical time: that is, the time it takes for the instruments of sense-perception (electrical and nerve activity) to act, and the time it takes for this nerve activity to become conscious (neurological activity); as well as perhaps how long this duration of a “present” moment is held in short-term memory.
As Krishnamurti often said, physical time (the time of the sun rising and setting, the time it takes for light to travel from a to b, etc) is one thing; psychological time is another.
Psychological time (for Krishnamurti) has to do - as you say - with the space that thought creates, the distance created by the psychological construct of observer and observed (the creation of memory), which interferes with perception and prevents direct relationship.
The question of immediate or direct-perception of the ‘Now’ moment is controversial in science and philosophy (for various reasons that do not need to be gone into here), but it is certainly true that Krishnamurti taught that such perception is psychologically feasible when the movement of thought (as memory and time) is absent.