phil King wrote: Jonathan...welcome. K used the word I in personal conversation, but he was quite aware of the public having images of him and he was so brutal to the word I, he probably felt that addressing himself as the speaker would be a way of avoiding the controversy. I think one of the things people may have missed too, though is his saying that he is not speaking as a teacher to his audience...as someone who knows telling someone who doesnt know and that he was doing this at the same time trying to find out "together" what is going on even though he had talked all the time about the same things. K seemed to be able to create a newness about the same old topic. This would, also, be a reason for being a speaker and not an "I" in the moment.

Thats not my point Phil. My point is that Jiddu was a human too. This means, he is in the same boat as we. The use of a third person aka "The Speaker" and not the "I" is very suspicious to me. It has to do with identification. I accept the notion thet the "I" is a construct. I wonder if Jiddu was an individual or a dividual. A Social Organism or a Biological Organism.

When you put both together as a whole, the social organism and the biological organism, what do you get? a Human? us Humans.

Why nullify the "I" it's not the "I" that has self-assertive properties.The "I" has self-integrative properties, it want to belong to something, a group, an idea, something bigger, a loved one, and all the rest of it. The the biological organism is self-assertive when stressed...maybe I am missing the mark here...

Leave the I and the EGO...

Lets focus on Jiddu Krishnamurti and the Speaker. :)

Who and above all What is Jiddu Krishnamurti? Who and above all What is the Speaker?

A verb?

kirsten zwijnenburg wrote: yes the god zone in the frontlobe, there it is, the seat of "I", megalomania.

Megalomaniak :)

phil King wrote: This illusion and subsequent delusional behavior may have had a purpose in the past in our evolution but it is totally destructive today as it creates a society that is separated by minds that create spaces filled with beliefs that we are different somehow. The difference is, of course, in thought's definition of that difference only.

Why did "K" called himself "The Speaker" ...

phil King wrote: "I personally am just wondering what would happen if science were to discover what the mind really is and how the "I" really is an illusion and how the "ego" is nothing more than thought and emotion getting it all wrong in a state of misperception of the truth."

Why do you think your body (Reptilian brain and Mamal brain) cares? Who Cares. Your body is in control, its doing great, the only problem is that sometimes those angels in the Cortex brain are whispering non-sense(ry) information...about truth, wisdom, love, ego and about illusions...how do you think your body should respond?

Can thinking effect the old brain? Or does the old brain effect thinking.

Who is in charge? What are the rules of the game? What regulation channels are in place?

What happends with the old brain when it receives information thats wrong?

Your boss wants to know, if everything is fine, and you tell him, its bad, we are going bankcrupt, no its even worse, we are going to die. How would your boss react? Fight/Flee/Stress. Do you think he will become emotional? :)

max greene wrote: As Boehm and Krishnamurti discussed at one time, somewhere along the line it appears humanity took a wrong turn. But in the meantime, we will see what we will see, brain damaged or not. In this vein, here's a question: Is the brain the seat of a sixth sense, in addition to the five we have identified? I'm not talking about something paranormal or mystical, I'm suggesting that the brain has a sixth sense called "understanding." My reasoning here is that understanding is often called "seeing," and I wonder if that isn't exactly what it is--seeing with the brain.

Bohm and K as I would call this "Sixt sense" Meaning.

Robert Michael wrote: My view is that due to our enculturation or conditioning by profoundly sick (or 'fallen') societies there is irreparable brain damage in the vast majority of people. And because of this mankind at large cannot find his way out of the present human dilemma and our world headed for an all out nuclear holocast. Krishnamurti also said that if man doesn't change we are headed for nuclear war. And I see no real or 'radical' change, like he insisted was necessary, taking place in anyone anywhere. Only endless talk about change. Which is not change at all.

Agreed...with one addition...Over-population will initiate the days of reckoning.

Robert Michael wrote: My question here would be: if there is real physical and chemical damage to the brain as Bohm observes and Krishnamurti seems to agree with; is it possible that the damage may be permanent or irreversable? In which case the brain would not under any circumstances be able to become whole or right-functioning and atttain to that rare state of mind and being that Krishnamurti had obviously attained to?

Hello Robert,

One of the main threads in this damage patern, is the discovery of death, and the refusal to accept it. The discovery originates in the new brain, the refusal in the old. Instinct takes existence implicitly for granted, and defends it against threats in anger and fear, but it cannot conceive of its change into non-existence. This refusal is one of the "leitmotivs" of history, perpetuating the conflict between faith and reason.

The refusal to accept death either as a natural or as a final phenomenon populated the world with witches, ghosts, ancestral spirits, gods, demi-gods angels and devils. The air became saturated with invisible presences.

So we have a discovery of death by the new brain, and a refusal of the old brain.

I think its permanent, the only solution is drop the body... :)