← Back to Kinfonet

What is the Essence of K's Teaching?

[quote=“PaulDimmock, post:40, topic:840, full:true”]

Calling our relationship merely material is an intellectual reduction to metaphysics. It’s an analysis that impoverishes the both of us (why doesn’t that irony ever find you?). You can certainly continue that course and in fact, physicists have already done so and found that what is material further reduces to energy, and that energy at every point then extends into infinity. All of which to me seems to state, like another sign post on our road to discovery, “wrong way,” or perhaps, “try another door.” What Krishnamurti is denouncing when he rejects the material is the manner of acquisitiveness. Things like gluttony, greed, sloth, (basically the seven deadlies). What he’s concerned about is your moral behavior. Not the metaphysical status of what a “substance” is. Certainly, many of us here remember the anecdote of K becoming overwhelmed with disgust at dinner one evening as he watched a guest a few seats down from him unceremoniously shovel huge spoonfuls of food into his mouth.

You and I are not like a couple of blocks that just simply run into each other. What exists between our material bodies at once exceeds the material.

Paul, this is the absolute language of Krishnamurti. A lot of this I’ve already addressed in many, many previous posts here and on other sites. K’s language does serve a purpose and has it’s merit. In retrospect, it serves the purposes of the world teacher’s role in bringing us to a crisis point, which he does most aptly. But, we should remember that he is the world teacher and we are not.

Again, the ending of the self is only a manner of speaking. In actuality, I only exist of and with (if not ‘as’) our meeting her and now. Asking if I can end the self before the self even exists is nonsensical.

If I am so completely conditioned through and through by knowledge (as you advocate) then I would be incapable of hearing anything from outside that field. Yet what brings me to clarity must first start from what is most near. It must start from the field of knowledge. And if that is the case, then the field of knowledge is already the house of the unknown and therefore I must already stand radically open to its call. I realize you’ve already stated you don’t care what Bohm has to say, but apologies as I quote him again anyway:

As I have already pointed out, the content of knowledge (which is necessarily of the past) cannot catch up with the immediate and actual present, which is always the unknown. Since the activity of the past is actually taking place in the present, this too is inherently unknown.

Essential Bohm, p.257

Upon reflection, that actually leads to an infinite regress not unlike the old fashioned homunculus fallacy. I cannot have my own self-sufficient subjectivity (even as illusion) of which I author and “form images about another person” on my own (all by myself) without there already being another subjective entity installed, which is also somehow invested with self-sufficiency and the ability to self author, etc.

I author as I am already authored. Affect as I am already affected and when I touch, I am the touched.

(I hope what is not coming next is a work up of subjectivity out of biology and the senses, which will just lead to a circular argument and beg the question.)

Have you listened to the question? It is not about me or you ending the self, which is an absurd notion. If the self does not exist until we meet, why are we meeting? Why are we here?

Oh my, lol

Paul…have you listened to mine? Because you’re asking me:

…which is basically the same question I asked from three days ago when I posted:

It might help to scroll up in order to follow the thread leading to how we got here now.

Well, all humor aside, what do you say, Paul? Why are we meeting? Why are we here? What is the significance that calls forward the “I” into attendance? :wink:

You have responded to the first part of the sentence I wrote - i.e., that the “image I form about another person is the creation of my own subjective imagination” - but have completely ignored the context of the whole sentence, which originally continues

which is immediately followed by the more succinct clarifying sentence (summing up the point being made):

The image I have in my mind will never be who they are.

What does the notion of a homunculus (an imaginary microscopic humanoid figure) have to do with anything? An image of you (in my brain) is not you. Is that not clear? I cannot capture, in my imagination, the wholeness - the infinite, fine grained detail - of your actual moment by moment reality. This is obvious.

As far as the rest of your reply is concerned,

it is just gibberish to me. Are you saying that when you touch an object that you are simultaneously “touched” by the object? Your rejection of basic biology and common sense only speaks to your own unwillingness to step outside your linguistic ego - or is that my inner homunculus speaking?

Why are you adding this other part to the question?

Once upon a time (4 days ago), I said that the “I” occurs when we meet and then asked what is the significance (or the “why”) of our (or “we”) showing up as you and I in this meeting. Then later (yesterday) you asked, “If the self does not exist until we meet, why are we meeting? Why are we here?”

Which does seem to be the same question.

Why are we here? Let’s find an answer to this question that doesn’t involve the self at all.

I’ll try to respond adequately, but…and I hope I’m not scaring anyone, I just received my second vaccination earlier today just after noon PST. It’s 9:30 pm now and I gotta say, I’m not feeling very good. Bad headache, tired and fatigued…and I feel “swimmy” or “cloudy,” if that makes any sense, like I’m coming down with something that’s…uh…not good. lol. Another odd thing that happened is my arm hurt for about 3 full days on my first dose, which has never occurred before. I’m having that same pain again.

I didn’t “completely ignore,” the context, sentence or your meaning at all. Instead those are the precise issues that this mutual constitution of self (affect as affected, author as authored etc) addresses. I don’t leave it out, I paint a bold target on it. All you’ve done is restate your premises again as if they are to be accepted without question. That’s all.

Now James, you do realize that subjectivity is intimately tied to the question of consciousness, right? Consciousness would be the ground on which the subject is erected, right? No consciousness, no subjectivity. And I would think with your higher education you would be aware of the ongoing difficulties in attempting to explain away consciousness as merely a biological phenomenon? Neuroscience can only produce a correlative narrative but never a causal one. This is commonly referenced as the irreducibility of consciousness. You could do a quick google search and that should provide you plenty of results, but also if you permit me, (even though I speak gibberish), I could provide you plenty of references to this end, and I suspect quite a few are names you’ll be familiar with already. Now surely you may disagree with them, just as you disagree with Bohm on some matters but agree with him on others, but to respond as if they are just nonsense or not worthy of consideration and utterly absurd for even suggesting that consciousness is more than biology is wrong, in fact it might be considered just rude and arrogant. It often seems to me that people that respond is such swift and broad sweeping dismissals are often just frightened and disturbed by their fuller implications. So, they just say it must be stupid. Which is what you habitually do. I mean you don’t use that language, but… There seems to be several instances between you and I already where you summarily dismiss some notion (for example performative vs constative speech acts) as nonsense and then only after much elaboration do you admit that, well perhaps you do understand, but it’s all academic and you side with Schelling anyway and Bohm is wrong so who cares, lets move on. hahahaha. And that isn’t very fair, or open, or kindhearted in what ostensibly is supposed to be friendly dialogue.

Is that what that is? Here I thought it was a breakfast cereal. Every morning I’ve been pouring myself a hearty bowl of Homunculus Flakes.

James, I’m familiar with this line of reasoning and we’ve been through this in different forms already. The word apple is not an actual apple, right? You said this after accepting that statements of universal limitation overturn as paradox when applied to themselves. But to you, that is that. With nothing more to see or to understand, while completely ignoring the actual act of speaking “apple” itself. As its own instance, the word apple is the word apple and when I speak “apple” something enters and alters this world in a way that did not exist prior to that utterance. Now this doesn’t need to be just apples. It could be bananas. Like I say, “Can you bring me a banana for my Homunculus Flakes?” But then lets say you don’t bring me that banana. Instead you ask why you should do anything for me at all ever since you caught me flirting with your sister Vanessa. And I say, "but honey, your sister has crohn’s disease. How could I possibly be attracted to a woman that needs to visit the toilet that much? And you look at me with horror at how irreverent I am towards your sister and her bowels and consider divorce to be a possible option. Being affected by this, I stand and announce that I’m going to Kelsey’s Bar and I’ll be back sometime…later.

Uh oh, here it comes.

Yes, that’s closer to it. Although, you and I are not objects like tables or billiard balls or even syringes full of a crippled and impaired corona virus. Even speech could be said to be a touching and affecting. When I call out to you, you’re changed and altered and recomposed and likewise I am composed irrecusably in answer. Objects do not regard you the way you regard them. They can’t love. Or at least, not like the love we get from Paul who constantly tells us that he loves us, but only when we disappear completely.

Ouch! My “linguistic ego,” eh? Are we two friends strolling down a beach discussing the problems of the world and living; do I need to jump into Krishnamurti’s fishbowl and pretend its the world? Gosh, I really don’t want to be seen as an egotist. What would change that impression you have of me? What can I do to make myself more available to you?

Well, I need to hit the sack. I feel like I’ve spent hours riding the tilt-a-whirl and just got off of it and the room is sorta slanted…3 degrees to starboard. I need to make repairs. Nite.

You want to find out why I’m here, and so the first move is to remove myself entirely???

If I want to find out what drunkenness is, do I decide that I must first preserve sobriety?

1 Like

No, you can’t remove yourself. Therefore where does the answer come from?

I honestly don’t follow your thinking Philip. You have some fixed view - whatever it is! - that apparently brings you contentment; and you are unwilling to explore any other view (certainly not K’s).

Just so you know, the topic of this thread is what people think is the essence of K’s teaching, and - as far as I can make out from your rambling prose - you are quite off-topic as far as that is concerned.

Wow, what a night I had. I feel so much better this morning but that second vaccine really affected me. Weird and vivid dreams.

Awww, that’s really a shame that you “don’t follow” James. Really a shame. Y’know, the number of things you don’t follow seems to be increasing rapidly and not just with things I introduce. Not only can you not follow or understand what a performative utterance is, or affectivity as mutually constituted, but also last Saturday, Ayham leads off with a brilliant question asking that, if it is so that thought-feeling cannot explore itself without the further influence of even more thoughts and feelings, doesn’t that very understanding alter the quality of thought-feeling? I deeply feel that to be a very salient and valuable insight. Welp, James doesn’t get that either so into the rubbish bin it goes. lol.

lol, so James, do you realize that on another thread that you’re participating in titled “what did Krishnamurti mean by fact” that you are currently commenting on the absence of any universal observer (I quite agree with you on that btw), on suffering and on the…“non-dual” state of sorrow? Couldn’t all of that seem “off topic”? Likewise, there was also a digression from the topic of essence on this thread; not introduced by me, but by Paul (self-improvement), commented on by Ayham and I developed it further with affectivity (you don’t care for that part) and so then you interjected with the emergence of subjective selves via neurobiology. And now you declare that I’m off topic?? lol. Totally arbitrary James.

I don’t believe I’ve read any “other view[s]” from you at all actually. You seem to be floating around in a Buddha box with your trick bags and now you’ve run aground on Krishnamurti island where you’ve impressed a few of the elite (don’t bother telling me that the elite doesn’t exist). But that aside, doesn’t it seem ironic to accuse someone of being rigid and unwilling to explore other views while simultaneously insisting on adhering to K and introducing no other views at all? You don’t say anything new at all. On every thread I’ve read, you just behave like a referee deciding on what is fair and what is foul, what is admissible to the great sages of old and what repugnant to them. Almost like you’ve bee recruited for the expressed purposes of improvement .

I’m sorry I’ve been a little harsh here. I admit, I’m disappointed by the breakdown and failure of what might have been a fruitful exchange and dialogue between you and I. You’ve lost a modicum of my respect (not all of it). My hope was a sincere one, but lets just part company as I’m not interested in indulging your continued sanctimony nor making you into another literary foil.

I sincerely wish you joy and prosperity and may the force be with you,