Not really. Or at least not so much with humans. My relationship with existence itself (reality, truth), that’s more where my litmus test for ‘getting it’ lies.
Maybe. Maybe not? I don’t know.
This sounds like more of a Vedantic way of expressing things: sat, chit, ananda. But I think the value of what K did was to object to too hasty an identification with “reality”, “existence” etc - and challenge us to meet the actuality of our relationships: with things, ideas, and people.
People - “humans” - are part of our existence. To ignore such a basic fact doesn’t seem sensible. And part of the challenge of any relationship with people is that we inevitably form unconscious images about them which interfere in the action of relating. These images are also formed when we read books or accept certain religious doctrines - from Buddhist tradition, or Vedantic tradition. In subtle (and not so-subtle) ways, these images introduce biasses and distortions in our thinking and experiencing, which concretely show up in relationship. That’s why it doesn’t make sense to avoid that mirror - even though it can be frustrating, painful, “unspiritual”, etc.
If someone claims that they only have a relationship with existence, reality, brahman etc - either they are totally wedded to that language, and are a saint (like Nisargadatta Maharaj, etc), or they are fooling themselves. And the mirror of relationship is the perfect place to see that folly play itself out - not as a judgment, but as revelation.
We are society - right? So if we become sensitive to the folly of nationalism or some other movement of ignorance, we do not have to “flow” with it, we can reject it out of intelligence. This may put us at odds with society - that’s all. The meaning of life is not to have a pleasant, untroubled existence by endlessly compromising one’s sensitivity.
This doesn’t, of course, mean reacting petulantly to “rules” that society has agreed for functional purposes: which side of the road to drive on, what qualifications are required for a particular job, etc.
Do you think that to live intelligently is to live without a feeling of moral responsibility or compassion? You might not call it “morality” (a word that has heavy, institutional overtones), but there are actions in the world that are not acceptable (even though they happen). Killing human beings, or abusing people, exploiting people, or unnecessarily harming animals, etc - these are incorrect, irresponsible, unintelligent actions. One doesn’t “flow” with such actions - such a “flow” is then a party to such actions, complicit.
I’m good with things and ideas … animals and plants and minerals too … humans, not so much. It’s too much like looking in the mirror!
Well - then it sounds like the perfect teacher 
Aren’t we capable of being sensitive? I don’t know if you have had children, but you mentioned having a cat - right? So your sensitivity - such as it was - to your cat’s independent dependency on you, is what informed your moral calculus with regards to your cat: when to feed it, how much to let it in the house or in the garden, when to pet her or to leave her alone, when to take it to the vets, etc. All of these actions required some implicit moral judgment (if you’re not hooked on rejecting this language) - a judgment that arose out of your knowledge, your awareness, your sensitivity.
You said “if” - which I took to be a rejection of a hypothetical. So I made it personal to you or to me. Because if we are capable of being sensitive, then anyone is capable - right? That doesn’t mean that everyone is sensitive - but that, as members of the human race, the fact that one is sensitive to something, makes it so for all.
You might be sensitive to your cat’s needs. That makes you act in a certain way - which from the outside looks like moral responsibility. But for you, it’s just the fact that you are sensitive to what your cat needs.
But someone else might be completely insensitive, and actively harm it, or neglect it. That’s all.
And because we are society, if we are sensitive, then we bring that to society, and modify society in an infinitesimally small way!
I am not very interested in human relationships. (I am more hermit than social being.) There would need to be a change of heart. And that doesn’t seem to be in the offing right now. So I work with what’s there. Perhaps one day I will ‘graduate’ to caring more deeply about members of my species?
Well I don’t know nobody: here you are, right? This may be a virtual forum, but there are humans on the other end of these typed messages.
What we do creates society. We are society - right? So if I am insensitive, unfeeling, unaware, etc, I am contributing to the insensitivity of society.
Maybe it would be more accurate to say: I am drawn to trusted one-on-one relationships whose intensity I can throttle up and down … for example, by deciding when and which postings to read and answer. High-energy relationships marked by chaos, friction, or lack of trust are often intense stressors.
I hide my ‘dirty little secret’ (that I quite enjoy certain kinds of human relationships) so that I can keep identifying with being a hermit, which seems to be a kind of security blanket for me.
Yes - I get that. I feel the same, if I’m honest. But isn’t it part and parcel of relationship that one is not in complete control of it? I cannot completely control the intensity of what happens, and that is part of what relationship is. - This doesn’t mean that I accept chaotic, stressful relationships (except where they are unavoidable!); but I have to be willing to roll with a certain amount of unpredictability in my relationships with people - which means relationship is both potentially disruptive, as well as potentially creative and revelatory.
This doesn’t mean 9-5 relationship with people - I certainly couldn’t stomach that! - but it does mean not blocking people out. I need my own space to retreat to and live in; but I don’t need to make that space into a castle or an island - right?
Thanks for that.
Yes.
You’ve got two different people, both with a unique set of personal goals, likes, dislikes, etc. It’s almost like they speak a different language, or at least a different dialect of the same language. Add to that that each person works with/through both an image of themself and the other person.
Meaning: A pair of images (with agendas, often unconscious) are ‘relating’ to another pair of images.
What could go wrong?!
Well yeah, that’s the way its gone for thousands of years. We can either continue it or it can end with us.
Obviously the ‘flow’ is to continue it. So be it. You certainly won’t be alone.
To be willing to make the effort to change something as instinctual feeling as how I interact with another person, I’d have to be convinced it was worth the effort. The proof is in the pudding: Does something flourish in image-free interactions that is superior to what flourishes in conventional interactions?
Yes - I think that’s right. The hearing of the birds singing is more important than my commentary on it, etc.
Right - this is the problem. However, seeing as practically all communication and relationship involves dealing with this problem, I feel it is important not to become cynical about it or to precipitously give up - because the solution may also involve a transformation in oneself (that we can’t acknowledge so long as we are isolating ourselves from others).
It’s interesting that practically every talk K gave on relationship involved highlighting the place that images play in our lives, and the need to be free from them. And yet it is only in relationship that the problem of these images becomes fully apparent.
Getting anyone to ditch their hard-earned identity is of course a rarity!
But I think if three like-minded people - not too identified, not too dogmatic - could move from fact to fact, never for a second bringing in unnecessary theories or dogmatic beliefs, then I don’t see why they should not be able to get somewhere.
Their like-mindedness would need to have them agree on what is and isn’t a fact. What might seem utterly and incontrovertibly factual to Jimmy might seem questionable to Sally.
Yes - the particular fact would have to be agreed upon and seen by everyone.
Let’s say that a fact is something that is public, open, and everyone can agree to. For instance, if Tom, Dick and Harry are taking a walk and it begins to rain, the fact would be that it is raining. Every Tom, Dick or Harry would agree to that.