Clearly you are reacting to something and injecting yourself into this inquiry on how thought operates. Howard would say it’s your self-image and belief in a separate me and the other which is responsible for such reactive violent assumptions/statements, and personal judgements.
**Well, that’s clearly judgmental analytical thought, according to conditioned memory. And false as well.
**Again, judgmental analytical thought at work. The statements are merely descriptions of what’s being looked at. And where is the factual inconsistency evidence, to support this accusation?
**Same thing again. I describe what I see, with you, inquiry, or anyone here. It’s not an “authoritative assertion,” regardless of this false judgmental interpretation. No such thing occurred. But you’re free to imagine whatever you like. But that won’t make it true.
Not really. My descriptions are describing observations. To support the observations a citation of your own words was provided as evidence at #27. To be used as a reference in context of the facts of our exchange and how it started. The observable facts in this case being your deferring a response to my clarifying question not once but twice, by what appeared (to observation) as setting conditions for a reply. Not only did you/thought set up conditions but also stopped the exchange while continuing exchanges with others in the interim, which made ask the clarifying question at # 20. Therefore my responses are simply describing facts, what is observable, and supported by evidence, how thought appears to function in relationship or the lack of it.
Furthermore, again, using the example of your own words and using the same citation in context of the facts of our exchange and how it started, the evidence clearly shows what appears (to observation), the differences in how thought/you is labeling the same actions in favorable or unfavorable words to suit itself. The actions are the same (e.g. setting up conditions for replying) but the terminology changes, as can be seen in the provided evidence.
So I have described what I see and can be observed. Merely descriptions of what’s being looked at. If thought/you are imagining there is a judgment then it appears to be another one of it’s unsubstantiated judgmental accusations observable in this thread, in the given citation, and elsewhere across the forum. Yet another deception of thought and its false labeling. What appear to be thought/your incoherencies and violent efforts to distort what is either deliberately or unconsciously, for whatever reason, may be looked at later.
However, like I said in the previous response, I am not interested in these but with the original question. I have already answered your question from # 30 at i believe it’s # 31. So if we can get into the original question that will be great. Thank you for your attention.
**Clearly we have two entirely different notions of the nature of inquiry. To me it’s about listening and looking together at human conditioning. It’s about observation, it’s not about judging each other as if the conditioning was personal. And it’s observing ‘what thought is doing’, not judging or evaluating the speakers.
K: We are talking of human beings and their problems, not a particular human being, but humanity as a whole. We are talking about the radical change of human behaviour so that he is not terribly self-centred as he is, which is causing such great destruction in the world.
First, your consciousness is not yours. Your consciousness is the consciousness of all humanity, because what you think, your beliefs, your sensations, your reactions, your pain, your sorrow, your insecurity, your gods and so on is shared by all humanity.- Calcutta Nov. 1982
**It’s pretty obvious that you don’t see this, and prefer to argue. So I wish you all the best in your endeavors. But I’m not interested in argument.
This is a truncation of what I wrote. You’re misquoting me.
Strange response @Howard, but perhaps not so strange.
I will ask you some questions in interest of this inquiry, please feel free to join. These are questions you/thought asks other contributors in what appears to be a conditioned (favorable/unfavorable) use of language as highlighted in my post # 27. So regarding your/thought’s above accusatory personal judgment seen of what you assert I am doing, is that thought-story what I’m really doing, or is that an analytical assumption the brain is making according to the past memory accumulation? Is it an interpretation according to the known? Is the thought/your response what actually occurred, or, a psychological assumption?" A conditioned thought interpretation?
Clearly this appears to be another judgment by thought-you, another assertion from the conditioned and deceptive use language, contrary to evidence and false. Though the previous para clearly shows the assertion is false but let’s go ahead and look at observations from other posters as evidence. Thomas Paine observes Here and i quote 
Please feel free to ignore everything I post Howard if you’re not interested in exploring as opposed to debating.
Similarly Paul Dimmock observes Here and i quote 
PaulDimmockKinfonet Dialogue Member
I was being rather reserved. There is much more than just quibbling going on. There is a not so subtle form of intellectual bullying taking place, using K as your crony. I leave you to it.
There is much evidence of incidents like the ones obove where your incessant arguing practices are in display, even in the first citation i had provided where the poor guy just had to stop.There are 3 occasions in our exchange so far where thought’s/your argumentative tendencies are shown where i had beg you to stop arguing about irrelevant points and to focus on the original question. Aren’t these part of the incoherencies of defensive thought?
Is this a fact or a false defensive assertion of thought using distorted conditioned language? Clearly the evidence isn’t supporting the assertion.
It is obvious, me talking about my thoughts, my impressions, is not talking together. We think talking together is an exchange between people, whereas actually talking together, there can’t be any one perspective.
On a Krishnamurti forum, it would seem reasonable to look at K’s dialogues as a good model of joint exploration and discovery. In these, K himself seemed to be discovering and part of the opening up of something new. Mutual respect and common interest would seem to be two vital ingredients if any kind of meaningful dialogue is to take place.
Is that the sound of one hand clapping?
It’s more likely the sound of the Rohingya people fleeing for their lives!
This is indeed one of many tragic things happening around the world.
**As I suggested last time, we clearly have completely different understandings of the nature of inquiry. Every response from you has been an analytical judgment. Only once have you addressed what I’ve actually pointed to, asking what’s the difference, which is basically comparison. But I tried to clarify it anyway. When the statements made are moved away from, and a focus on the speaker results, that’s not what I call not listening. Responding to my question as, “pretending ignorance” is a rather odd form of listening, to my observation. Again, good luck with your venture.
Finally related to the original question.
So this is another issue. When people simply describe what they simply believe but have no insight into it then usually thought faces a problem when trying to describe the facts surrounding these ideas.Upon observation it appears the a you/thought weaves it’s stories around beliefs by collecting various ideas but doesn’t have a clue on how to unpack these ideas.
It’s unfortunate to witness this kind of censorship. The hidden post at 45 was also answering ‘Inquiry’s’ question from 31 and the hidden post right above at 49 was a response completely in tune with what has been discussed. A continuation of the inquiry. Can the staff please explain what i did wrong or what was wrong in the posts?
This is a public forum so the manner in which you address others is as important as the content. It is one thing to disagree, but you need to do so in an agreeable fashion and also be sensitive to how your criticisms are being received. And be respectful when someone expresses the desire for you to stop addressing them personally or commenting on what they have posted.
If you need more clarification than this, please consult the forum guidelines
1 Like
As you can see my posts come with supporting evidence. Perhaps foolishly I was expecting a more detailed explanation which will illustrate with examples and evidence what these violations of “manner” might be.That way, there will be a transparent clarity on what all concerned are doing. That is to establish if the censorship is needed, fair, and most importantly, just. Not sure if you will be willing to a dedicated inquiry in interest of supporting what you say?
See the other thing is the timing of staff intervention, right? At what point the staff are intervening. Is the intervention done at the right time or is one contributor being ignored while another gets censored? I would think in order to be transparent and clear these things need to be sorted out? If it doesn’t, then reasonable doubts on fairness and integrity may arise among forum members, yes?
Likewise, the need for a dedicated inquiry also arises for any allegations of criticism, or failing to stop when asked. Naturally, if you are a fair person, you will let the responder finish defending themselves from prior accusations or criticisms, won’t you? But again, all these need to be inquired into and made transparent and determined in a dedicated inquiry by looking at evidence, right?
If we are willing to establish all of the above I will be happy to join you in a dedicated evidence based inquiry. Or, you can simply not respond and i will get the message. Thank you.
The respect we have in common interest is family, business, sport, politics, religion, and all that stuff. People understand dialogue to be about their perspectives, on their experiences, what they have read, etc., and what they can say about it. First, all this has to be understood to be a human condition which is a psychological distraction. It is a heritage of words, ideas, traditions, and knowledge, for each country, each society, which is a human conflict, and repeating it all is not meaningful dialogue.
Not sure who is repeating what - me, you, all of us? Hang on, there is no me or you, is there? Oh dear.
The conventional idea of an open mind is an unrestricted ability to say what you think. But an open mind is where there is a space free from thought, with no imposing content.
The sense of separation is not my invention. It is the nature of perception that operates across all species of animals including humans. One may argue that a lion may have no sense of self-awareness when it is battling another lion for domination of the pride. Nevertheless, its behavior - driven by consciousness - is that of an individual actor.
Whether or not the consciousness is mine and separated from other people’s is a question that needs defining. Just because we all think doesn’t mean that my thoughts are not mine but the thinking of humanity. Intellectual property theft is a crime and we are required to provide citations and not to plagiarize. It may be cultural conditioning but that’s the way we are.