So how do we know we are in the same place? How do we know that actually we are meeting one another? How do we know that we are free to look?
Is there any good enough reason to meet another?
But also, Am I overwhelmed by you and what you bring to the table?
If I am being honest, I don’t care about meeting any other than that. That is all I care about. ‘That’ is my only reason.
So what is the ‘that’? How would you describe what it is that you are meeting?
‘That’ hits without pain.
Is this because there is no resistance to it?
Yes - this is the question we each have to put to ourselves.
1 Like
It is very simple. The world is in a mess - right?
Are you part of that mess, or are you separate from it? If you feel that you are not separate from it, then you must feel (somewhat) responsible for the mess - correct? And if I also feel that I am not separate from the world’s mess, then I feel responsible for it too. Then we can meet.
But if I feel somewhat responsible and you still refuse to see it, or accept it, or recognise it, then we cannot meet.
I refuse to be part of it. Do you? Then we are together. That’s the only intelligent response. I am not dodging it; I am facing it head on, which must bring about a terrific crisis.
1 Like
This is either true or false depending upon what we mean by “refusal”. If you are a part of the mess but refuse to see this, or do not have the humility to accept the fact of your condition, then this would not be the correct refusal.
If you mean that you have seen the whole nature and structure of your participation in the mess of the world, and so are completely inwardly out of it, then you are out of it. If you are completely out of it, then why are you participating in these dialogue meetings?
1 Like
I’d say so, though I can never be sure.
I don’t say I am out of it. It is all around me; every day it is there. But I refuse to be part of it. Only then is a dialogue possible.
We have already addressed this Paul. You are still insinuating that your consciousness is separate from the total human consciousness when you say
But it is not just “all around” you: it is you. Your so-called “refusal” does not change this - but it does make dialogue with you very difficult. Are you willing to accept or see that your consciousness - Paul’s consciousness - is not special, but is common to all humankind? Most of us “refuse” to see this, because it means we are not special.
It is only the content that makes us feel special or worthless or something else in-between. When we talk about our consciousness, it is the content we are talking about. The content is the mess, isn’t it?
1 Like
Paul - are you implying that you are not your content? Are you separate from the content of your consciousness, which is the common content of human consciousness?
Therefore, it is only the resistance that matters, that needs to be watched, followed and understood. Any conflict or disagreement in a dialogue is revealing the state of the resistive mind, which is an indication that the mind has stopped listening and is operating in ideas and images. Does this make sense?
Yes! I think for me, the search for common ground ends with resistance.
The content is the mess. Why should we have any content at all, psychologically? It’s just a lot of words and ideas being used to protect a lot of other words and ideas. Surely we don’t need to be shown this fact repeatedly. One has a big enough job protecting the body, making sure there is a fairly comfortable life, physically, because one has to earn enough money to keep a roof over one’s head. This is our common lot, if we live in a democratic, capitalist society. In other societies it may be slightly different, but it is generally the same problem for all of us right across the world.
1 Like
And when there is no resistance, the common ground is immense.
1 Like
If you don’t mind me saying so Paul, this is a rationalisation. The content of consciousness (which makes up the consciousness) is not just words and ideas: it is pain, grief, loneliness, suffering, pleasure. It is also the idea that I am separate from the content.
So before we ask whether or not the content of consciousness can be completely emptied (which K has said can only happen through a total insight), don’t we have to be aware of the content in ourselves, and find out if we are separate from the content at all?
So far I feel you have not displayed any willingness to look at this question. You have sought to move the question to another ground which appears to be “outside” the content of consciousness. Indeed, if one just goes by the words you have used, you have so far not been willing (apparently) to say, very simply, “Yes, I am the content of consciousness”.
On the contrary, by implication - seeing as I have given you ample opportunity to say otherwise - you are apparently claiming to be empty of content; which means (again, by implication) you are implying that you have had a total insight which has wiped out the content, and so all you are concerned with is
Are you implying these things I have mentioned?
Or are you willing to say that your consciousness is in fact part of human consciousness, with all its common contents? This is K 101 - so if you feel you are not the content at all, it is beholden on you to say so explicitly and explain your divergence from K’s approach; as a reluctance to be candid on this matter will inevitably create confusion.
K: So content is our consciousness. Right? That must be very clear. The content makes up our consciousness. When you are angry, that’s your consciousness. When you are jealous, petty, narrow, all the rest of it, that makes the total content. So we are looking at the consciousness of a human being, which is yourself, actually as it is. Right?