In one of the threads someone has said that subjectivity is an illusion. I can’t reply directly as I am not a member of that particular group. Subjectivity gets a rough deal on these pages, possibly because my self is subjective, but the scent of rain is entirely subjective, absolutely real and is not an illusion. You may say that life is a little more complex than that - unfortunately we are not dogs as Krishnamurti put it - and I get that but it could also be said that it is objectivity that is the illusion. As I understand it, duality can be seen as ‘me and my shadow’ and certainly one can be objective about one’s shadow, but consciousness is not a shadow of itself. The consciousness that is conscious of consciousness is the same consciousness that it is conscious of. Or, to put it another way, the observer is the observed. So, to me, Krishnamurti is not being objective here, quite the opposite in fact:
I am not seeking confrontation or challenging anyone, but, despite my reservations, I find myself being increasingly drawn away from studying the teachings and into the world of the dog.
Hey Pil, Refreshing to read something so candid. Indeed, there may have been some big problems (and advantages) with Krishnamurti’s teachings, and I’m certainly not the first to mention them. Just one example would be K’s insistence on absolutizing and speaking in grand totalitizations, and that’s coming from someone that believes that this man actually touched what we might call God.
The contrast of concepts is avoiding what the subject is doing, thinking, feeling and all that, actually, in the immediate, not conceptually. I will always get lost in the concepts, or on the other hand be able to ride with the cleverness.
I had decided not to partecipate anymore to this forum… yet I’ve been striken by the “dog” candid-ness of your post. Yes, it’s all just throwing a stick and playing as if it was the most important thing on earth.
Now, don’t you feel the futility of these discussions?
Do you think K. can be understood rationally? Something in your speech suggests me you don’t. Or at least this is what is implied… (
If this is an observation, you’re out of the loop. But if it’s just a conclusion, you’ll keep looping until you see it. You’ve concluded also, that your subjective response to the singing birds was not a loop, but how would you know when you’re conceptualizing, not actually seeing?
Is it possible you’ve got K-fatigue and need a vacation?
Pilgrim described consciousness as we know it as a loop, and if this was a revelation, Pilgrim would be free and somebody finally “got it”. If Pilgrim was wondering whether it’s a loop, and wanted to inquire into it, that would be one thing. But Pilgrim just seemed to be fed up with his attempts to penetrate what can only be resisted.
Notions like a “revelation” or “freedom from” or “getting it” are the very instances of his complaint. Let me put it like this: awareness is not something that exists. Not even beyond conceptions. Not even beyond thought. Pure awareness, just like pure observation are abstract products of meta-cognition. And they are abstractions absolutely.
You’ll have to elaborate. I know nothing of “pure awareness” or “pure observation”. I use those words in accordance with K’s teaching, but when you add “pure” to them, you’re referring to something apart from the teaching.
I don’t know anything about them either. They don’t exist.
I’m not sure of the difficulty here. Pure, as in uncontaminated by choice for example.
If you’re uncomfortable with the word “pure” then perhaps replace it with the word “choiceless.” “Choiceless awareness.” “Choiceless observation.”
Well, the difference it makes is that it puts an end to the unresolvable Krishnamurtian meta-dialogue that is based in an epistemic language game. It provides a space in which “affectivity” opens up new horizons, offers deeper excavations, broadens the emotional palate and finds tones, timbres and textures that add more intimate passages to our symphony of dialogue; still being composed; still unfolding and heretofore has been locked and held captive inside these monster abstractions like “observation,” or “choiceless awareness.” It means that, carried within its over-arching metaphsyic of space-like presence, the word “observation” harbored and hid personal affect like a fugitive hiding from the law. In this case, that law, was the law of awareness, which comes to kill anything it touches so that it might live timelessly.
I’m okay with personifying awareness, if that’s what it takes to slay the “monster abstractions”. Please say more about why awareness kills “anything it touches so that it might live timelessly.”
Surely. But, as you say, that affectivity affects a preference. So, in response to your previous question on the problems these abstractions pose to furthering the dialogue, if I now foreclose on our current dialogue, then I do so on the basis that you are exhibiting a preference and therefore are not coming from a place of awareness because awareness does not prefer. And now I turn away from you in a self-righteous huff, which then deserts the “you” who is the one reaching out to me now, the one who prefers. The one that calls me to attend.
