Surely it is possible to see that some habitual thought process is obviously useless, or detrimental?
But who is going to make the selection? Who is going to decide which bit of thought is good and which bit is bad? Therefore, it is far easier to give up the whole thing in one go.
Why? I mean why would I give up the whole thing? Doesn’t that imply some inkling at least about the basis/source or effects of thought?
In order to discover the truth about my own nature. Carrying on as I am, I am destined to partial and limited perspectives. From these partial glimpses of myself I can wait for what I think will be a total insight. Or I can deny the whole waiting game from the beginning, which is now. Anything to do with now can’t involve thought. And relationship only exists now. It is not in the shadows of the past nor in the dreams of the future.
1 Like
Carrying on as I am, I am destined to continue being me.
Which is as a shadow or a dream. What happens when I am nothing at all? What happens when there are no shadows or dreams?
Light shines unhindered and without prejudice
Another dream, isn’t it? Nobody knows what happens.
Can thought see the beauty in not knowing what happens next? Can it grasp the intelligence which negates any desire to know?
Can thought be aware of anything but its own compulsive movement, regardless of its content? Awareness illuminates what it attends to, and there is awareness of what thought is doing when thought is not taken for granted, but acknowledged as an ongoing process that must be attended to.
For instance, thought is not aware of itself when it is dreaming, but its dreaming activity can be illuminated by attention that makes dreaming lucid. Thought is not aware of itself until or unless the light of attention is illuminating its activity.
The illumination of thought by attention reveals thought’s mindless, careless, reckless activity to itself, and this exposure has the effect of making thought more mindful, more careful, less reactive and more reflective. Thought is only aware of itself when the brain that is suffering from thought’s unconscious activity, attends to it, thereby enlightening it.
PaulDimmock : Another dream, isn’t it? Nobody knows what happens.
Depends how you interpret the words ~ I just wanted to share the poetic logic born of our inquiry ~ but yes, it’s true, I don’t know what any of it really means
Yes, that’s the same question.
I am not sure that there are degrees of thought. It is a mechanical movement. Even when operating slowly and sporadically it is still mechanical.
While there is any sense of a relationship between ‘I’ and ‘it’ - between me and the world - it seems to make further sense to offer poetic descriptions of and logical explanations for this relationship. Without thought as intermediary, however, there is no relationship at all. So our descriptions and explanations are solely for the benefit of thought. Without thought, the mind is universal. It is the universe. For whatever reason, thought has taken itself out of the universe and made quite a game of it.
The universe has given us our brain and its thoughts. We can’t just say that our attempts at communication is bad. That those who really really know are silent.
Don’t you see the effect of your words on others? This power that you have over others is a relationship.
That’s right. In relation to our enquiry, you say, ‘I don’t know what any of it really means.’ This is simple enough because you are speaking for both of us. Indeed, you are speaking universally because the truth is that none of us know what all this really means, at the deepest level; none of us know what is the full significance of existence. Starting from here, our relationship is very honest.
1 Like
Yes, it’s mechanical, but it’s artificial intelligence, which means it can learn. It can revise and correct itself when it acknowledges its mistakes.
But does it have the intelligence not to tread at all in those areas where it can cause only distortion and damage? Or does it continually adjust itself in those areas, withdrawing and advancing by degrees, hoping one day to achieve some kind of perfection?
1 Like
We both know the answer to this, so why ask? Thought is artificial intelligence. Intelligence (we believe) is the brain operating in an orderly, unified way instead of the partial, fragmented way it operates for you and me.
Or does it continually adjust itself in those areas, withdrawing and advancing by degrees, hoping one day to achieve some kind of perfection?
Yes, it adjusts, withdrawing and advancing by degrees, but not with the foolish hope for perfection.
Thought learns to think by the mistakes it makes, and its mistakes are relative to its intention. When thought is as interested in self-knowledge as in self-perfection, it lowers the bar with every mistake
It is not a rhetorical question. It is a rational question. Thought is behaving irrationally when it operates in our relationship. So can it be perfectly rational and keep out? The answer is outside the field of knowledge. Our relationship itself is the only sane answer.
Your question, “does it [thought] have the intelligence not to tread at all in those areas where it can cause only distortion and damage”, and my answer is “No” because thought is artificial intelligence, not Intelligence.
You say that “our relationship is the only sane answer”, but that isn’t an answer to your own question - it’s just a notion you’re steadfastly hung-up on.
If we stick with K’s teaching (setting your teaching aside), there’s no meaningful relationship without compassion, and there’s no compassion without the awakening of intelligence. Perhaps you feel that you have awakened to intelligence, and that you are operating intelligently.
Can thought keep out? Between you and me, can thought keep out?