Yes, I said that fear, thought and time are bound together; therefore memory is the glue. Do we ever have a relationship with anyone that is outside of memory?
We talked earlier on about insight. Is it possible to see the truth of something so completely that no insight is necessary? To me, insight is merely a residue, a leftover fragment of thought which says, ‘By Jove, I have grasped this wonderful idea!’ But it is our insights that drag us back into the past. So surely one can see the truth about the nature of insight without any accompanying additional insight, which is simply mental fireworks. In the same way, just to see the truth about human relationships, of which I am a part. Because any insight into these relationships must already distort my part in the relationship, making it more about me and my brain than about the truth of the matter.
We have posed a question, which is: Do we ever have a relationship with anyone else that is outside of memory? Looking at this question together it is possible to see the truth about memory and its role in our lives. We begin to see that everything we do in our personal lives is governed by the past. It is this truth alone which may bring about change, not our insight into the truth. But that’s a jump too far because first we have to consider the question.
This is your context. You have decided in advance what this consciousness is and therefore you are preventing yourself from looking at it. You will only see what you want to see.
What is he trying to communicate?
That - which is not bound by one’s Beliefs and Limitations
If consciousness is not being addressed throughout here, what is being addressed then?
Aren’t we speaking about two different styles of enquiry here? one that suggests through meeting and dialogue, there is an understanding which allows every issue to be set aside as it arises and go ever deeper, i.e. when there is a shared interest in sustaining in it. The other approach (which you are suggesting) is an inquiry into oneself, setting aside everything else, not needing to actively seek relationship, but seeing whatever is the state one and the environment is in, and in a single sweep of understanding see the patterns involved and go past it.
There needn’t be a conflict between the styles, as one will be implied in the other effortlessly. As I see it.
1 Like
This is what I am trying to get at. When there is listening there is only the consciousness of the whole, at which point there is no ‘other’, so the notion of meeting, and meeting together, is redundant, and therefore continuing to conceptualise things in this way is sustaining a falsehood. This is what I meant by move on. To move on from feeding this, and if dialogue has any meaning, create questions which make sense, and not nonsense.
I agree there is an interrelatedness here with what you point out, and that they are two aspects of the same thing, but is it not the case that there needs to be a strong component of the one, if there is to be any sense made of the other, both literally and metaphorically. When the ‘insights’ of the one approach, if such they be, cannot be addressed or articulated in a way that makes sense when employing the other, then there is difficulty in communication. If I ‘believe’ in the reality of looking at things together then I need to be very good at that, otherwise it is all comtradictory.
If I may say, in the same way a dialogue is decided in advance (though stated that there is no prepared agenda on it’s contents) by defining it’s requirement on attitudes.
You have introduced the word ‘consciousness’ - but what is consciousness?
So, first of all, are we aware of our beliefs and limitations?
The word ‘consciousness.’
There is no requirement on attitudes. I am asking if we can explore together in dialogue. It is only possible if we both understand what we mean by ‘dialogue’, which we are going into now.
Let me see. You have $1 million dollar mystery box, and if a ‘we’ stumps up $1 million dollars, they can have a look at what’s in the box, and that’s why it’s a $1million dollar mystery box.
There is neither mystery nor a million dollars. We are looking at what this thing called ‘dialogue’ is really all about. It may be about nothing at all; it may be a waste of time. We shall not know until we look.
Surely all that can be revealed is our relationship to the word - whether that word is consciousness, our, relationship, insight, dialogue or any other word.
Also Paul, I’m wondering whether you fit your own bill : I mean, don’t you hold a particular viewpoint regarding how these conversations should be going? Are you really meeting us where we are? Or do we have to catch up with your understanding (of the words like dialogue, or insight)?
There is no ‘should’ - these conversations are what they. Nor is it about my understanding of any of these words; the dictionary is good enough for that. What matters is only that when we use a word and start to talk about it that we both share the same sense of its meaning. As for dialogue, I have said that it is neither discussion nor debate because both those forms of conversation have conflict built into them. Insight belongs to a perceiver and must always be limited. So a dialogue is the perfect place to explore the possibility that there may be a perception of the truth wholly without a perceiver.
But first there was the question about whether or not we ever relate to anyone outside of memory. Let’s take one question at a time rather than introduce a lot of side issues. I am sure they will all come back to the same thing in the end.
Not usually - there is for example the cutural programming of how we relate to others.
Then there is the reinforcement of our world view through our experience of confirmation bias.
Finally, as I think that I may be specially endowed (because I’m special), I think I am being open minded in this conversation with you, but I may of course be mistaken.
(All the above - my opinion - itself, totally dependant on belief and memory)