Edit - Sorry. I’m weak in language skills - because english is a second language in our state and I’m developing my skills. And so I’m editing again and again - to rightly express what I observe.
In my view, Yes, it is a Psychological need and One can live without a need to have contact at all.
How? A baby can’t, obviously. But even a grown man can’t just keep to himself on a plot of land.
Yes, a baby can’t. Because he has no awareness. If he feels hungry - he doesn’t know he is hungry. He cries. That’s what he can do. And starve to death. If he sees an object/animal - he plays with it. He doesn’t know with what he plays. He is so keen to injure his physical body. And so parents provide security.
Could you describe - why he can’t?
**Hello Dominic - Your questions remind me of something a friend of mine pointed out: “Whatever you say ‘leaves out’ more than it contains.” What I was pointing to with my descriptions were the aspects of dialogue that seem to distinguish K or Bohm dialogue from other forms of dialogue, which seem more about ideas, and less about openly observing ourselves in relationship. It doesn’t exclude thinking, but observation is different than “trying to figure it out” with the thought in memory, which is analyzing.
And yes, I feel choiceless awareness can reveal not just the words, but what the words point to, as well as the limited nature of thought.
I don’t see any requirement to dialogue aside from the interest to engage in it. But if there’s no sensitivity there’s not going to be much openness to learning together. But that’s up to each participant to observe for themselves. It’s not a sliding scale, it’s just a matter of how serious the participants are with regard to looking together. What occurs in the dialogue is up to the participants. Are they serious about transformation, or not. Here’s a great quote from K that seems to address this well:
K: If you treat what we are saying at a verbal level, then go away, it is a waste of time. - Madras Feb. 1952
Food, shelter and clothing are the basic needs of humanity; and without relationship to other people there is no humanity. Life is relationship in all its forms. So human contact is neither a basic need nor a psychological need; it is the very stuff of life. It takes many forms, including this current form of contact over the internet. But there is no life without it.
Independant existence is illusory (ie only conceptual) ?
See. You had asked whether it is ‘Psychological Need’ for Human Company and I said ‘Yes’ right?. Psychological Company means my pleasure is dependent on others. One can live without that pleasure/joy from others psychologically.
But you say for Physical needs a Company is needed or not? - Yes I need that for taking care of my dependants and my physical body. But there are some people who lives in caves, forest alone without any Physical Human Company too - eats leaves, animals & fruits for their life - and are in search of god within. They does. It actually happens.
It is not illusory. It is one’s choice.
There is no God within if you have to search; searching for God just produces all sorts of demons. Is it possible to live in society with no conflict? That’s really the question. That’s why people withdraw into the woods: because they are hurt by society and their withdrawal is a reaction to it. Can one be hurt but have no reaction at all? Simply, it means a total perception of the hurt; a perception with no perceiver.
Yes. They try to run from it. But you had asked about contact and so I had just said that there are people living without human contact. You have a belief that humans should live in contact with each other. It may be/may not be. It is not a fact at all. I can show you that.
You may have heard about - Swami Vivekananda, K in the past centuries. You may have seen that - they han’t volunteered in any activity other than to ‘educate’ others. They won’t speak anything to people around them other than ‘sufferings’, ‘psyche’. If there is no sufferings at all - then humans need net have to physically speak with others. There will be no need at all - if there is no conflict/fight and only peace everywhere.
The relationship is ‘There is no separate. There is no we. there is only one’. If there is only one - then what will be there a second to contact. Thats all. Nothing to have contact with others - if there is no other. Could you see that?
Yes. I am Suffering. When we observe the ‘I’ which is ‘hurt,sufferings,etc’ (i.e. not differentiating ‘perceiver’ and ‘preceived’ - to live suffering) - then what happens - can we inquire about that?
That’s just an idea, a lovely theory. The fact is we are separate and so we fight. Unless we face this fact without any deviation from it, we will continue to talk about unity for the next thousand years while standing among the ruins of our battlefields.
Yes. Thats what I’m saying.
Say, I (Humanity) is the ‘house’ and the ‘House is on fire’ - Here House is the Humanity, and fire is the suffering. I Accept that I am fire (suffering) now. Does that mean ‘i’ as a ‘fire’(suffering) watch the ‘house’(humanity) burn into ashes?. What should we do then?
There is nothing you can do. The desire to do something is thought. It is the essence of conflict.
You are caught with a belief that you can’t do anything. Can you see that? - Can you come out of that belief?
You only ask, ‘What should we do about conflict?’ when you feel that you are separate from the conflict. Whereas you are the entire conflict; it is nowhere else in the world. You are the world. But the moment you resist this, you say, ‘I must move away, learn, teach, preach, understand, anything to escape this horror.’
Don’t reply so quickly. Listen to it first. It is only memory that wants to reply, an old response. You can only meet this with a totally new response.
I can observe what you say. You are right. I am not escaping it. I can see it. But I don’t believe that there is only conflict. I have to inquire about ‘conflict’ - what it is. You have a belief that there is nothing in this world other than conflict. We doesn’t know whether there is or there is not. We have to inquire about it. Only for that we have discussions. But you are always with an answer. Can you see that?
No, sir, there is no answer from another. You have to answer it for yourself. I am pointing out a single fact. I am showing you what you are. You are the world. Therefore it is no use at all searching the world for answers. I am the world and the world is me. When we place any form of beliefs into this world, either the outer world of written texts and holy books or the inner world of hopes and dreams, we have immediately denied this fact, this truth, about ourselves. Then the belief in peace brings about only more and more of the conflict it attempts to end. I am not saying there is only conflict. I am saying there is conflict right through the fabric of the self, a fact we cannot avoid unless we want to create more conflict.
Sir, sir , sir - you are just playing with words. Can you observe that Conflict brings miseries in the world? I’m just asking - can we inquire conflict?
Why do you have to observe it? It is there. Your observation won’t make a scrap of difference.