Thinking is an inherent function, a movement of the brain shaped by evolution, accumulating knowledge for survival. It does not serve a “who” or a higher purpose; it operates as it has evolved to do. Perhaps the deeper question is not about assigning thought a role, but rather seeing it as it is without imposing ideals or expectations upon it. In that seeing, doesn’t clarity arise about its place in our lives?
Krishnamurti spoke for over 50 years about the importance of such simple observations, yet here we are, on a forum dedicated to these teachings, still failing to engage in basic inquiry. Perhaps the challenge is not the complexity of the questions but our unwillingness to stay with them.
Thought serves the organism in the sense of helping it and its species survive. But thought overstepped its charter and in doing so became dysfunctional.
Regarding what goes on in this forum, our explorations range from Krishnamurtian to quite far afield. Your inquiries are welcome, they enrich the brew.
Our assumption is that thought did something it shouldn’t have done, but jmsaario says that inattention is the problem; that thought is just doing what it’s designed to do, and we’re not aware enough to know when it’s operating needlessly.
Thought trumps attention often in my experience. Say thought snowballs into crazy (obsession, worrying, fear), a process that can happen lickety split. Being attentive to the snowballing has little effect. Once the arrow has been released, it needs to complete its flight.
The difference is the desiring of an “effect” (change, escape) and choice less attention to what is happening. The disturbance when met with resistance exacerbates it, sustains it. That’s what thought is conditioned to do. It reacts to a disturbing image it has created and then tries to resolve the disturbance which affects the whole system.
The snowballing is the result of a build-up of assumptions and conclusions drawn for lack of awareness. By the time content is snowballing, it’s too late to do anything but be buried, overwhelmed by it.
To state the obvious, thought operates properly when the distinction between thought and what is not thought (or a product of thought) is clear.
Thought is mechanical and sustains itself by thinking, but there is no thought without awareness, so why aren’t we always aware of what thought is doing?
Do we know exactly what thought is conditioned to do? It’s a mechanism designed to acquire knowledge now that can be referred to in the future. But knowledge can be what seems to be, and not always what actually is, so thought must know how mistaken it can be if it is going to acquire actual knowledge and not accumulate a pile of incoherent content.
Without self-knowledge, thought is irresponsible, reckless, over-confident, impatient, etc., and who/what is to blame for that?
To address the problem of incoherent content, Krishnamurti advocated self-knowledge, being aware of every move thought makes and acknowledging (without judging or justifying) thoughts that reveal bias, prejudice, anger, resentment, greed, etc.
Thought appears to serve the organism in supporting survival, but this is not because thought has a conscious purpose or intent beyond its own existence. Its role is an inherent byproduct of the brain’s evolution which is an automatic process that seems to align with some survival needs, without thought itself being aware or deliberate in its ‘service’.
Thought is conditioning. It is not a subject or actor but an ongoing process, functioning within its own movement, not as an intention or reaction to anything outside itself. Language, with its inherent structure of subject and object, imposes reasoning and duality even where none exist.
Isn’t the idea of panpsychism still rooted in thought’s tendency to categorize and project its assumptions onto reality? Rather than adding more layers of interpretation, could we instead ask if intentionality is something thought ascribes to phenomena, or if it arises naturally from observation itself?
Perhaps what matters is not whether things possess intentionality, but whether we can observe without conclusions and see what is actually there.
