A quote presents the original in the sense that it presents a series of words as they were first delivered (spoken or written). There is potential value in this for obvious reasons, especially if the goal is to understand the view of the person being quoted, rather than the view of those who have commented on this person. There is potential danger too, of misunderstanding, misinterpreting, dependence on authority.
A bit of a stretch, but I get your point: Both quotes and thought are the collective past. The question is: Of what value is the past?
What value is to understand another person’s view on anything (psychologically)?
We see that there is value in technological, social, entertainment and all other aspects of our lives (put together by mind) to exchange ideas, views and perspectives. To build on and reflect on and criticize other people’s ideas and thoughts is fundamentally a movement in the field of mind, which is fragmented and limited. Do we see this?
If we are concerned of what is and insight, then what role does any person’s quote or thought play in this inquiry?
Obviously there is no value and no role whatsoever. There is no time, hence no knowledge, no ideas.
If we are only concerned with what-is and insight, and if both of these are thought to have nothing to do with the past, and if referring to the past only serves to obscure them, then we are concerned with no-thing, because any ‘thing’ is of the past. Where does that leave us?
Tricky to answer as we haven’t really accepted a definition of what we mean by insight.
I’d like to use the old adage that nothing is intrinsically good or bad - the effects of every event spread out in all directions in all sorts of manners.
Maybe I can imagine that there are big and small insights, and that a really big insight can temporarily negate the self and its question - thus for a moment good and bad are transcended?
However, there will be a memory of this experience (we can’t help but make one up) and so there will be effects (thus good and bad) even of the total insight.
Remember what I said before about non-substantiated claims (ie. stating an opinion without giving any reasons) ? Regarding the old adage: if you look closely I give a reason as to why the adage may be true - You may contest the claim, but it would be better if you gave a reason (other than : it is my opinion) for example, you could point at something that is intrinsically good (or bad)
In conversation I like to use different modes - if I just proclaimed boldly that whatever I say is true, I would come across as a psychopath - It is good to know the social conventions in order to use them effectively - however, we have no control over the interpretations and emotions of our interlocutors.
Also speculation (as you refer to it) can be a tool for communicating ideas, for example : imagine I have a basket with 4 apples in it. Now someone comes along and eats 1 of those apples. Now I have only 3 apples left.
This is an example of using “speculation” (I’m sure theres a better word - but its not available to me right now) in order to see what substraction means.
Why are you lost? What makes you to grab hold of whatever gives a sense of direction?
When we are lost in a forest, we stop and observe, and use our knowledge to find a direction.
Psychologically, when we are lost, do we stop and observe? Are there directions at all? When we grab an author, idea, concept, theory and so on to give a direction or to follow, it is all coming from the past. Why do we do that? Why do we escape from the present moment to the past, to knowledge, to authority? What are we escaping from? What happens when we just stay and observe?
When we observe the present moment, we learn immediately how lonely we are. We are strongly conditioned to avoid that feeling of loneliness, which is the impulse to “grab hold of whatever gives a sense of direction”.
When we see that conditioning, it is put in its own place, and our inquiry brings about insight. And then we are no longer lost.
Do we see this through our very own inquiry? Not making it into a concept or theory, but actually doing it ourself.
One no longer retains comments made in posts. Within a day or two, they are all gone. Unlike you, “I” don’t remember what people on this site say.
The adage is patently false. Moreover, you have stated something (this adage)… in other words, you are requoting what someone else said, what you were told by someone else, what you read elsewhere, as a possible truth, without knowing for a fact whether it is true or not. And that is why it is false.
My go-to example is always the big fat lie guy. He’s intrinsically bad. Telling lies is intrinsically bad, making any kind of statement that is not provable, that has not been proven is really bad, because they are not facts. It causes confusion, and later ends up hurting people. There were idiots who believed quite a few of his lies, and ended up in hospital trying to recover from the suggestions he made re: borax, ivermectin, etc. His complete disregard for facts (things that provable) places him in the really bad category, Don’t you agree? Can’t you see that??
EDIT: Of course, I am leaving out all the rapists and the act of rape, the pedophiles, all the sexual abuse that a large number of men commit, the genocidal maniacs: Hitler and his ilk (and those who knew what was happening and turned a blind eye to all of it), etc. They are worse than bad, they are evil, right?
You see, I wonder what kind of person denies the validity of calling out an act or a person as inherently bad or evil. The #MeToo movement has made great strides in giving a voice to those who have been damaged by evil men… but I guess, I can’t expect everyone to understand that, as much as I would like people to um…get with the program, so to speak, to um… wake up, eh? I live in this world, and I am female, and have known (though not personally) of what sexual abuse can do to someone. I am somewhat astonished that an apparently intelligent person cannot see that…
So, you are admitting that you will use any and all means in your conversation, without regard to consequences, to yourself and to others on this site. Perhaps, you have never understood that the means define the ends. Take a dirty bucket to the well, and the water you draw will be dirty and contaminated as well.
In B.C. the loggers did so much clearcutting of forests, out of greed and with little regard to the consequences, that much of the flooding and mudslides happened because of this clearcutting.
Not "if these are thought to have… ". We are investigating “what is insight”. So let’s find out together, what it is. We are not creating ideas, thoughts and theories about what it is, but inquiring actually what it is. Is this somewhat clear?
As long as we remain only in the field of thought we are going in circles, and fundamentally wasting all our time.
I would propose not to analyze or go into details of the inquiry, before you have completed the investigation. We can analyze only ideas and concepts, so there is importance in asking the right questions we want to take seriously with attention.
When you inquiry into “What is insight”, what happens?
Well, like I said, I haven’t thought about it much. But I guess to me ‘insight’ is something like: an understanding of the essential nature of something. Insights tend to be sudden Aha! moments, but I like Bohm’s notion of insight as an ongoing way of looking at things, a mode of perception (sort of).
Can we put aside our preconceptions about insight and go tabula rasa on it together?