This turns out to be the answer to my questions!
1 Like
What is it that gets revealed in a dialogue?
If I have a problem that concerns me greatly - but am alone at home say - thinking about the problem, searching for solutions in my head - “depending on the known” as it were, but unable to solve the problem - possibly because the whole problem is actually dependant and based upon my world view.
What can be gained from the inclusion of another’s thought process?
Are we saying that something is gained by the inclusion of another’s thought process? - as in 2 philosophers are better than one?
First of all, do you actually have a problem that concerns you greatly, something unsolved that you keep going back to? Secondly, is that all we are to each other, a thought process, or is there something else that gets awakened when we gather together all our energy to solve a real human problem? Then all our world views are redundant.
1 Like
In order to find out, we have to put aside completely every trace of memory, experience and reaction. In other words, it is only when there is no me and no you that the phrase ‘each other’ has any meaning. Until then, thought will control and define the terms and limits of our relationship.
Hi,
Here, we are not seeing an ‘object’ as a tree - i.e. around one. We are looking psychologically - i.e. within one - and it is no different from one person to whole humanity.
But - Yes. It would be better if this ‘inquiry together’ takes place as ‘in-person’ or ‘online video discussion’.
Well, I for one, have had quite a few insights, and there was this explosion/release of trapped energy, which moved through my body, and healed the damaged RNA (damaged through generations of ludicrous beliefs and actions), and hence my view of the world changed instantly. For example, having had the insight into “I am the world and the world is me”, I now understand that anything that divides human beings is inherently incorrect/wrong. Hence, I no longer vote and I even removed my name from the voting lists, since politics divides all human beings. Intellectual insights are meaningless.
I see nothing wrong with dialogue, as long as it really is dialogue, and not just intellectual posturing.
How shall we know the difference?
Aye, there’s the rub! The key words for me that come to mind are “relationship” and “friendship”. Would I want to sit down and break bread with “the other”, my friend; and then, talk… together?
Do you mean on here? Obvious, isn’t it? Ignoring parts of a comment that don’t jive with their preconceived beliefs/ideas/understanding, and then repeating the same belief/idea/understanding as if “the other” hadn’t even spoken. Meeting “the other” is intensive. Otherwise, it would be a waste of energy to continue…could easily degenerate into trying to argue with a zombie - a futile exercise.
It is fairly obvious when we don’t meet one another because we see the effects of being divided as conflict in our relationship. In one sense, however, the dialogue is revealing this fact to us, which may be the only thing we need to see. Our division or separation may be the result of an intellectual posture; so the posture may be necessary first in order for us to look at it.
Well said, Paul. I also wonder whether this intellectualization is more of a plateau than a posture. It seems to be a comfortable staging ground from which to comment from. What bothers/concerns me is the lack of motion - it is like they have stopped, or are stuck there. K had said something to the effect that he kept moving (sort of like jumping from boulder to boulder, if I recall - not sure). I liked that about him. I tend to say to myself every now and then, well, I think this is as far as I can go, and then a month or so later, I say, well, something has changed, I see things differently, so this meditative state where I am in right now is that I really don’t know where I am now, but it seems to be ongoing, but with my age, at a much slower and gentler pace, so I can never be sure of what or how I see things (the seeing of what is). There is, however, always a sense that there is constant learning. Having seen everything about me, I understand the why of my life, so there is this sense of meaningfulness, for which I am so very grateful. I am skeptical of those who do not demonstrate in their comments that sense of meaningfulness. So, I wonder whether or not they have fully gotten to the bottom of themselves, or just skipped that part completely. Have they even ever seriously been interested in that age-old wisdom of “know thyself”? I don’t know if I am expressing myself correctly here. But, my major concern is that nothingness seems to have pre-empted the possibility of the discovery of that which is sacred - even the possibility of the existence of that which is sacred. So, when K asked the question, is there something sacred out there, such an inquiry would not be a question that they would even wonder about or consider. You see, for me, (and the mind/heart just said it was okay for me to say) there is something out there - it is immense, moves fast, so incredibly fast, and it doesn’t use words. I was dying (physically) and it intervened and touched my right shoulder, I just caught a glimpse of it in my peripheral vision to my right, and it was gone in a flash. I fell asleep, and woke up feeling as right as rain. There are so many aspects to meditation, and I know and state very clearly that one insight is insufficient, especially if the choice of that insight reaffirms an initial intellectual posture or tendency. And to have stopped there shows that there is something in them that is missing or perhaps the word “lacking” is more appropriate. I don’t know what to do, how to get others to keep moving. One can’t exactly thwack others at the back of their heads, and say, hey you, stop pontificating, right? or, do you realize that you are pontificating (from a static intellectual position)? Any suggestions?
You don’t see that conflict is fundamentally I, self, and there is no relationship as we like to think there is, or is not?
If being as “nothing” is what we indeed are: not-a-thing, why is that state not the “sacred” itself?
Those who boast that they don’t suffer are insufferable.
First, what is our question? Because the right question put at the right time may itself contain all the seeds of the sacred.
Perhaps we could ask: what does it mean to move together?
Forget the boast. What is your answer to the question?
Perhaps we are hurt on a daily basis. Does hurt have to be made personal and converted into suffering each time we are hurt?
No, it may just be a way of expressing something out of the ordinary, which is a mind that refuses to suffer. Is such a mind possible?
Are you devastated? Or is this a theoretical scenario?
is in conflict? is suffering?