**Hello Emile - Let’s take a look. So first, we aren’t talking about practical knowledge, like where we live and how to drive a car, etc., right? So that leaves what K and Bohm called psychological knowledge.
DB: What do you mean by psychological knowledge? Knowledge about the mind, knowledge about myself?
K: Yes. Knowledge about myself, and living in that knowledge, and accumulating that knowledge. - The Ending of Time
**So, what exactly is the nature of “knowledge about myself?” What is it? What is it based on? What importance does it have? Is it divisive?
**That is what K is suggesting, but the question was about the nature of ‘accumulating’ psychological knowledge. What is it? Why do we accumulate it, and continually create conflict over the accumulation? Is it something “false?” Something “divisive?” This learning without accumulation doesn’t happen as long as the danger of accumulating isn’t seen.
Yes. If I remember well, he didn’t like the word teaching. He warned the listener not to make him or anyone an autority. To not repeat something that we don’t see ourselves. He was rather exploring , inquiring with the listener.
Do we see that the brain , which need security , have always found it in knowledge ?
Isn’t conflicts arises when we have opinions, believes or ideas about what is ? Or if one look for security in illusions or beleives , as an example, which are all thought and knowledge. If you threaten my believe or my opinion that I hold for the truth, that I am strongly attach to, I will react. You maybe will not be in conflict with me, but I will be in conflict with you.
All those psychological knowledge are not facts but projections of the mind. Isn’t it what psychological knowledge is?
If one sees a fact together, is there any conflict?
And of what use is the knowledge that all divisions are conflicts without seeing it happening around us in reality, as an example?
**I think the next question after 'What is the nature of accumulation, is, “What do we observe?” Not, what opinions do we have about it, but what is observed?
For example, if the conditioning says, “The brain finds security in knowledge,” that can be observed to see if this belief/thought is true or false. Observed, not analyzed. Does psychological knowledge, ‘me separate from you’ create security? Or does psychological knowledge create division and insecurity? What do we see, not what theory do we have. If humans are dividing themselves over psychological thoughts, identities, etc., that actually puts our security at risk.
**But this “if” is “time.” It’s one of the ways thought distracts attention away from observation. It IS psychological knowledge in action. We keep talking about it, instead of observing it.
When we ask, “Isn’t knowledge about myself of the same nature,” it’s thought saying, “I think this is the same.” It’s psychological knowledge masquerading as a question.
That’s “talking about it,” versus, observing what the actual thought occurring, is doing.
I understand. The body need a shelter , food and some hability to survive The brain have accumulate knowledge for that. So it find security in that knowledge. Would you say that this is observable? Can we say that this is true ?
Yes. It is observable. Is it what your’re trying to point out?
**Yes, it seems clear that we need practical knowledge to function intelligently.
**I was asking, ‘What’ do we see, not ‘can’ we see. Do we see that psychological division is not making us secure? Do we see that dividing ‘me from you’ psychologically, in thought, in the imagination, is not making us secure, it’s creating all of the conflict, violence, and killing.
**That seems to point to the ongoing error, which is ‘settling’ for an intellectual answer, from ‘the authority’, even when he stressed not making him an authority, and to see for oneself. So rather than directly observing what the words point to, the inquiry stops before it begins, with “the answer.”
I would suggest, if I may, that it would be important to clarify , as you mentioned, to what K. is refering to using the words: …knowledge about myself and living in that knowledge, and accumulating that knowledge.
**Sounds fine. So what is ‘knowledge about myself’? Ideas? Images? Beliefs? Abstract thought-imagery? “I’m a musician.” “I’m a father.” “I’m smart or stupid.” Isn’t knowledge about “my-self,” all psychological imagery? Words, not the thing?
And then, what does it mean to “live in that knowledge?” Doesn’t that ‘point to’ taking the words for the thing? Imagining we are the image or description? The descriptions are the “identity,” but are we a ‘thought-identity’, or no-thing?
**Yes, giving an undue significance to words is the “wrong turn.” And rather than questioning and observing what thought is doing, what it’s nature actually is, we keep telling each other “what they should do,” as in, “these words are the truth.” So the should’s and shouldn’t’s, coming out of conditioned memory, as beliefs, perpetuate this emphasis on words, rather than on observation, free of the bias of “my beliefs.”
However, if there’s an interest to observe together, the words can be used to share what we each ‘observe now, freshly’, not as judgments, but simply descriptions of ‘the conditioned thought patterns’ that are revealed in relationship. A cooperative observational inquiry. And of course, the conditioning will keep generating beliefs about how this is impossible, but those fictional thoughts can also be observed as assuming something we can’t possibly know. In fact we have evidence to the contrary, that it is possible to simply observe, without judgments, or to observe any judgment that may arise in thought.
**I have the same question regarding this response as in the other thread. Does this response come out of the looking you talk about, or analysis according to knowledge/memory? Did anyone suggest looking was too hard? Where was that observed? Where was a “concocted arena” observed? Isn’t that a thought projection of memory? Where did someone say, “Do this or do that?”
Seriously, if this is “looking,” where is this being observed?
Words, not the thing. The thing itself being the totality of the content of our consiousness, including the thought/identity, the words.
Krishnamurti: This is very clear. “I” is that consciousness.
Krishnamurti: Of course. The fact is after looking, observing, I see I am the whole of this consciousness. This is not a verbal statement. I am all that. Thought is part of it. Thought is the “I”, except where thought is functioning technologically, where there is no “I”. The moment you move away from the scientific field, you come to the “I” which is part of the biological. We see consciousness is the “I”. The whole of that field is the “I”. In the field, the “I” is the centre.
(Tradition and Revolution, Biological Survival amd Intelligence)