That is why we have to find out what it means to think together, which is to think not from the personal centre of memory.
Imagination is thought: images, pictures, ideas.
When we imagine a car - we can see. But when we let ‘ego’ interfere - thought arises that ‘How it looks?, does it have Engine?, what colour is it?’ likewise & desire follows that ‘I have to buy this car’.
So, Imagination is different from Thought. Even K uses it in his dialogues, to show others how to see. He asks one to imagine about a ‘house’, etc
But we are using thought now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be able to string a sentence together; and I wouldn’t be able to read it. All of this takes place as an action of thinking. There is nothing wrong with it.
Ye
Yes. Only for verbal communication, we have to think about the words. But to enquire, there is no need of ‘thought’. Just we have to ‘see’. Thats it.
Yes, I see, that puts it better.
1 Like
I’m inviting you all for a discussion. Will you all join it?
Before joining this, just go through the discussions of
When we want to meet to take a walk, we could make an appointment for Friday, 2 pm. If we both want to, we will be there at the same chronological time.
the requirement for dialogue seems very similar to me: we meet if we are interested in meeting and walking, take a walk and look together what is occuring in the landscape of our minds.
PS: I was notified that, as a new member, I’m limited to one reply in 12 hours, as I understand it. So this reply is from today’s morning and a further reply will seemingly be possible not until tomorrow.
The landscape of our minds has been put together by thought, hasn’t it? In this landscape, there is something called pleasure. Are we coming here out of pleasure? Or is it necessity that brings us here? Therefore, depending what it is that calls us or attracts us to dialogue, this will determine the nature of what transpires, will it not?
For me, a dialogue is neither a pleasure nor a necessity. It is the whole of life. Then it is all so very simple.
1 Like
I’ll take your accusation into consideration.
You’re rejecting all insight because you’ve never had an insight?
It is not an accusation. This appears to be common to all of us when there is conflict in our relationships.
No. I am rejecting insight per se because it merely perpetuates the illusion of personal progress or psychological becoming. I am violent. To seek any form of insight or understanding into the nature of my violence is to delay my meeting the fact. In other words, I am saying to myself, ‘I shall deal with violence once I understand it.’ In the meantime, I am still violent; and I’ve now the added pressure of hoping to find an end to the violence.
Or he is offering up diversions and deflections to maintain an ongoing engagement with anyone who has yet to realize what he’s doing. It’s all about “meeting”.
1 Like
Insight is the overthrow of belief, certainty. It’s violent. No one can seek it. You can only seek what you know or can imagine.
Then we are using the same word for different things. What do you mean by an insight?
I see that I am resentful, which is a form of violence. I see it very clearly as it arises or manifests in the consciousness. It doesn’t need to be explained or analysed; it is there. Being aware of it, it no longer has any power behind it; it is gone. But it is not an insight; it is a perception of the actual state of the mind and its manifested behaviours. The violence lies in the resentment; the perception of this resentment has no trace of violence in it at all. The violence has gone. But when I say, ‘Oh, I have had insight into myself,’ that’s maintaining the field within which violence will build.
I don’t think we should be getting into fights with anyone, or trying to second guess their intentions - I reckon we are all trying our best, and if not, either way, if communication breaks down, thats because communication is not currently possible.
Personally, the information given by Utes has been most illuminating for my take on this whole thread.
Given you both attend and facilitate dialogue, and in light of the above, I wonder if you have a notion of what dialogue is within and of itself? What I mean by this is, if dialogue is considered to be a real thing, and something which can reveal patterns in thought, and I think someone somewhere else may have used the term process, reveal the process of thinking, is dialogue then a meta process? and where then is it considered to be? By this I mean, is dialogue an emergent property of consciousness, or something contained within the psychological? What is it that makes for dialogue as a potential, or as a realisable possibility? For example if I am by myself alone in a field, can there be dialogue, or can there only be dialogue when there are brains, or psyches together, as in the characteristic notion of a dialogue? And say I am particularly insensitive, does the close physical proximity to an other make for something regardless, and say I am sensitive, then can there be dialogue at a distance, as say here. That is, is dialogue primarily about numbers, about physical proximity, or about sensitivity?
I would like to nominate Dominic’s quesion for a special prize - but I don’t know in which category.
In any case, it has given me great pleasure. (Thank you)
Not true. Awareness and acknowledgment of resentment does not magically end it.
Yes, to the first question, No, to the second. I don’t doubt that Socrates thought things through before he posed his questions to his students.