My name is Terrence Webster-Doyle and as I said before I was asked by Krishnamurti to take over as the headmaster of the Oak Grove School in 1984 replacing Mark Lee who became the head of KFA. I started a debate on whether or not the Oak Grove school was actually teaching the insights K had about conditioning. I questioned that for I feel questioning is a healthy process to get the truth of something. But I felt that the dialogue on Kinfonet immediately got off course with some people speculating about various things not related to the question at hand and therefore I feel that the debate was fragmented and not focused. What I would like to attempt to do here is to stay focused on what a school would look like that actually taught K's insights in education about conditioned thinking. I would like to see what the school would do on a daily basis? What would the curriculum be like in detail? What training would the teachers have? How would conditioning be incorporated into the overall curriculum? How would one incorporate understanding conditioning into the conventional academic subjects? What practical and relevant context would be needed to demonstrate conditioning on a daily basis at the school in relationship? At what age should this start and how, not the how of a method but the how of "mirroring" conditioning as it is happening in the moment? What would be the process of learning that would have to take place in order to have conditioning understood intellectually and at the same time experientially? I want to get to particulars and not intellectualize about extraneous matters unrelated to the detailed structure and make up of a model school, not as an ideal but as an actuality that one could take as a working hypothesis and create such a school. As I said in the other debate about the Oak Grove School I want to bring to life such an education. I feel my wife and I made an attempt to do this with the Atrium School we started in Ojai the same year I left the Oak Grove. I would like to share this experience with you. So if you enter this debate please stay on track. Please don't get carried away by abstract dissertations about what K said or not or go off on some quasi spiritual or philosophical speculation. I would greatly appreciate if you would share your observations on such a school so we can together at least "on paper" create such a place of intelligence.

Peace will forever remain an ideal until the roots of conflict are understood

I don't know what the school would look like, but if it started turning out radicals, It would probably lose its accreditation in the State of California

Radical means "at the root" not a rebellious reaction. Yes, I think that such a school might not get accreditation but if it taught all the academics necessary for college entrance through the eyes of conditioning as we did in the Atrium School then I think it could get the necessary accreditation. But this is has not happened yet especially with the Oak Grove school. But I would still like to have people stay with the intent of this debate since I think it is imperative to create such an education. Does anyone have any concrete insights into this as I have asked at the start above?

Peace will forever remain an ideal until the roots of conflict are understood

Terrence Webster-Doyle wrote:
What I would like to attempt to do here is to stay focused on what a school would look like that actually taught K's insights in education about conditioned thinking.<

Presumably you are under an impression that it is possible to bring a root level change in the psyche of children by giving them the right education. No wonder, you may be like the many here, who are in a hurry to bring a change in others without actually undergoing a change in themselves. Don't mistake me. This problem of 'failure of teachings to enable transformation' had baffled even K, which is abundantly clear by his own words. My 'Theory of Fragmentation of Intelligence' unravels the reasons for it.

In this regard I may humbly like to state the following:
1. The change is necessary and possible only in adults.
2. The age of children is such that they neither feel the need to change nor they understand what is to be done for the change.
3. When even elders aren't able to understand the concept through the present level of teachings, how can we expect the children to?

If the functioning or operation of the mind is good, it's out put is also good, irrespective of the input is good or bad. Similarly in a disturbed mind, the output is generally bad, irrespective of the inputs. This operating mechanism can't be altered or improved by merely giving good inputs.

However, if one is at all serious, one can change or transform one self, by understanding the principle and operation of human mind, at least theoretically. Presently available teachings alone may not be able to bring or enable a change in others.

Terrence Webster-Doyle wrote:
As I said in the other debate about the Oak Grove School I want to bring to life such an education. I feel my wife and I made an attempt to do this with the Atrium School we started in Ojai the same year I left the Oak Grove. I would like to share this experience with you.<

Please share those experiences, Or inform the website where you have placed those details. What extra ordinary results you got in Atrium?

Terrence Webster-Doyle wrote:
I am a former Director of the Oak Grove School. I was personally asked by Krishnamurti to do so in 1984. I had written him a letter saying that I was not, in all due respect, interested in him, but rather in understanding conditioning, which I realized could be seen by anyone that cared to look. (I had been seriously interested in understanding conditioning since 1969 when I first heard someone read a passage by Krishnamurti).<

I would humbly request you to share your findings, if any, about conditioning, as you seriously took interest since 1969.

My final question is whether K platform is necessary to bring a change in others ort society? Don't mistake me. I took the concept of K, but I had to make a lot of alterations to them to work in my case.

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

This post was last updated by Prasanna P Sat, 04 Jul 2009.

hi terrence, first thing to bring in when making the difference, is patience..

Eve Goodmon wrote:
I am very sorry you feel the way you do. I had no offense in mind in any of my responses. You can choose to be offended or you can really look at them and check if there is any actuality in them. They are blunt yes, offense is often tied to cultural norms and I did not mean to be offensive only frank. It is only my opinion you can choose to look into it or throw it away. As for my writing?.I should have taken more care for sure. Kind Regards, Eve

It is unfortunate that Terrence is intolerant of your attitude and didn't stop long enough to look at the substance of what you had to say. To be fair to him, I must point out that you do have a boot camp staff sergeant's air that can even intimidate a 6th Dan black-belted Karate Master. And to be fair to you, this is supposed to be a K forum meant for participants who knows well to leave their egos at the door before coming in to talk.

You have a pretty impetuous nature judging from the way you offered to leap onto Terrence's bandwagon at the getgo without even frisking the guy for hidden firearms. It is a style I like, though, and that's the way I do business, but only when due diligence tells me that I can commit to the deal and sign on the dotted line.

Let's cut to the chase. I would like for all of us who are interested - including those (e.g. Prasana) who question the entire approach to education - to move on with this topic. Even though I didn't start it. I have always wanted to contribute to what Krishnamurti had started, help keep that passion burning, move on by ourselves even without the "master", and see how far we can go into that unknown. Thanks to Terrence, he caused you to show that you have the gumption and willing to forge ahead if the opportunity presented itself.

A K dialogue that does not lead to action is fruitless chatter. I have adequate means (i.e. high net worth) and am willing to underwrite this education project that you have in your head. The only thing I ask for is due diligence, and this means to investigate, to soul-search and confirm that what we set out to do will not turn us into people no different from those running the KFA and the Oak Grove School.

What do you say?

The kind of school I would like to see would be one without tests and grades. No comparing one student to the another. Let each flower on his own according to his own abilities and interests. I remember K saying once that if a student didn't learn how to read until he was eight or nine that's ok. Let the children be children. Let them explore life, live life with as little pressure as possible.

At some point you inform the students that, unfortuneatly, life in this country and perhaps most of the world is based on envy, greed, ambition, jealosy and power. Ask them to see that in themselves as it occurrs without judgement, without wanting to change anything, but to see it with all of their attention. It's easy to pick others apart and see their faults. But what counts is to see what we are moment by moment. Maybe with the proper guidance, each child will discover on their own that all thinking is conditioned. Some conditioning is necessary. Learning a skill is conditioning. Knowing our way home is conditioning. And on and on. But then, somehow, let them see that psychological conditioning that has invented and continues to shape the center, the ego, the I is what causes the problem. It is not the me that has created the thought, it is the thought that has created the me. I think if you tell someone that, as counter intuitive as it seems, with a clear understanding of that fact in your own being it will touch another.

This post was last updated by David Loucks (account deleted) Thu, 09 Jul 2009.

Yiming Zhang wrote:
Let's cut to the chase. I would like for all of us who are interested - including those (e.g. Prasana) who question the entire approach to education - to move on with this topic.

Hi Yiming, It is remarkable that you don't skip following and responding to these threads even while on business tour. Meanwhile, may I request you to answer the interview questions on the profile page, when you find time? This would enable me and others to know your views on this crucial subject.
Best,
Prasanna

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

To David, Eve and Yiming:
David thank you for your comments, although I wouldn?t consider myself a ?lad? at this stage of life being in my seventh year (by the way my name is Terrence). My intention with both of the ?debates? was a straight-forward objective inquiry into whether the Oak Grove School was actually teaching about conditioning as K asked of it. And secondly to elicit insights into what such a school could be like. My intention was never to get into personal conflicts of a subjective psychological nature. I feel not conflict with anyone, perhaps only frustration.
My main interest is in understanding conditioning and having an education that actually has this as their focus. I appreciate Eve?s latest comments on how to teach in this way. This is what I was asking for it and now has given me a greater understanding of this process.
When I was at the Oak Grove I spent part of an afternoon up at K?s house at the east end with K, Mark Lee, David Moody and Mary Zimbalist (K?s ?companion?). It was there I had the opportunity to go over a very simple single sheet of paper that had K?s intent for the school. In essence he was just interested in helping the students to understand conditioning. It was as simple as that. K many times during his talks said that understanding conditioning was simple and not difficult but just hard work. He asked the parents and especially the staff to develop programs that could directly teach about conditioning. I took that charge seriously and tried to do so with the programs that I have created.

As I have said previously when I approached the Oak Grove School a few years back with my programs they were met with resistance. As I also said before that it made little difference to me if they used my programs or not but to use some sort of means to teach the students in a consistent, developmental fashion about conditioning as a subject in a relevant and practical format such as bullying. But this went nowhere. They felt that they were doing this but not directly in any subject class on conditioning. All the things they offered were in my view secondary as best, mostly psychological methods to change conditioning. I differed with them on this, as you know. But this is now past and for me there is no need to go into what the Oak Grove does or doesn?t any more. What I am interested in is a school that does what K?s asked us to do.

And I have found one in Liberia. To quote from a book about this school called Brave New Child ? Liberating the Children of Liberia and the World, There have been many theories put forward as causes of the Liberian civil war ? including unemployment, abuse of human rights, political patronage, illiteracy, lack of development and tribalism, among others. While it is true that all of these factors may have contributed, at the heart of the Liberian conflict ? as with all global conflicts ? is psychological conditioning, the fundamental cause of all human conflict.?
As the book goes on to say (from the back cover), ?These Lessons demonstrate that no matter how conditioned one is to violent behavior, and these children of Liberia are perhaps the most severe cases one can imagine, that they can be liberated from that habitual mindset. And if they can, so can all children who face conflict daily ? from bullying on the playground to bullying on the battlefield.?
And as Marvin Davis the teacher of the Liberian Common Ground peace school program says, ?The work of the Common Ground Society in helping the youth of war torn Liberia understand the basic destructive nature of prejudicial conditioned thinking can prevent another and more catastrophic civil war that most likely could last for many generations to come. This is based on the fact that these young people have been primed for war having grown up in it, that is, they have been unsuspectingly habituated to horrendous violence and that if this is unleashed, as it easily could be, it will be catastrophic. This is an urgent warning that needs to be heard and properly attended to, for as history has shown, without understanding this basic reasoning we have again and again been compelled to go to war.?
Here is a courageous man who after spending seven years as a refugee in the Gambia went back to his home in Liberia after the fifteen-year civil war and started the peace school project with twenty war torn young people in Buchanan. This amazing book is about this yearlong experience. He is now in the capital of Monrovia and has taught over three thousand young people about the effects of conditioning as the underlying factor in creating the war.
If any of you are interested in understanding how Marvin transformed the violent revengeful conditioned mindset of these children I suggest that you look at the book on our web page www.atriumsociety.org. The book is there for you to either buy at Trafford Publications at http://books.trafford.com/07-0354 or you can see a sample on our site and even download the book in full if you wish. (Yiming: you stated that you have the financial capability to fund such a school. I think that the one in Liberia would be a great one to do and I know that he desperately needs funding to continue. If you are interested in this please let me know).

Peace will forever remain an ideal until the roots of conflict are understood

Prasanna P wrote:
Hi Yiming, It is remarkable that you don't skip following and responding to these threads even while on business tour.

I am not on a business tour. In case you are wondering, just picture me as a man who never have to work for a living. My only deep abiding interest these days is Krishnamurti's agenda to bring about human change. I have always liked discussing with people who share an interest in Krishnmaurti even though meaningful dialogue is few and far between. The present topic on education is of deep interest to me as I have been harboring the idea, for some time now, of starting a project of some kind involving the upbringing of children. By the way, I do share your views (quoted below) and would like them explored within the context of Terrence's topic. It was those questions of yours that stalled the project.

Prasanna P wrote:
In this regard I may humbly like to state the following: 1. The change is necessary and possible only in adults. 2. The age of children is such that they neither feel the need to change nor they understand what is to be done for the change. 3. When even elders aren't able to understand the concept through the present level of teachings, how can we expect the children to?

Could you expand a little on Points 1 above? Point 2 and 3 are self-explanatory to me.

And my answer to the interview question you requested is no, I don't think Krishnamurti's work will die away.

Eve Goodmon wrote:
Dear Yeming, As you can see I was requested to stop posting here because I am not polite. And if I was polite I would stop. I am clearly not polite but I am going to stop posting here. Not because I am trying to be polite, but because there is no point in it. There is as much intolerance here as there is in at the world at large and in a forum where the discussion is about conflict resolution. So I wll focus on our discussion in other places. Kind Regards, Eve

Ok, your place or mine?

How about starting a new topic in this forum? Give it a name. You have some really good stuff on education that I want to go over with you. Also, I wish Prasana will join us because the question he raised are serious and need to be discussed.

Yes, there is too much intolerance everywhere.

Eve:
Aren't there certain universally accepted standards of politeness? David did not ask you to stop posting here but instead to stop posting your personal complaints within this context who's intent is of a more general objective educational nature. You do seem to have a "chip your shoulder" and have used this forum to express this in subtle and overt ways blaming me, for example, for not wanting to get into resolving your conflict. You seem to be acting as the victim here. As I said before this was never my intent with this forum so I agree with David in his view that perhaps another forum for your personal grieviances might work better for you. So therefore there is nothing then to prevent you from saying with the original topic here minus the personal remarks.

Peace will forever remain an ideal until the roots of conflict are understood

Eve Goodmon wrote:
lets call it an Educational Froum Discussion. Where people can discuss anything relating to what are the needs of todays education?

Great! Just do it. And you can moderate your topic as you deem fit. Bear in mind that this forum belongs to Drakanthus who has been quite benign about how we talk here. Imagine a forum (and there are 15 of them here in Kinfonet) as a school and when you start a new topic, you are starting a new classroom in Drakanthus's school. In this classroom (i.e. topic) of yours, you are the teacher and all of us contributors here are your students. You are free to conduct this class anyway you want and we are supposed to conform to your teaching style. (Please show us how you teach!)

Terrence Webster-Doyle wrote:
Eve: Aren't there certain universally accepted standards of politeness? David did not ask you to stop posting here but instead to stop posting your personal complaints within this context who's intent is of a more general objective educational nature.

Hi Terrence, communing is impossible without affection. In the absence of affection, cooperation ends. Since it was you who started the topic, it is incumbent on you to keep the flame of affection burning, no matter how difficult your contributors may be, and steer them towards focussing on your goal. In a business company, it is the manager's job to get results from his people whom he doesn't always get a say in their hire or fire. If those results don't come in, it is the manager who gets canned.

Yiming Zhang wrote:

am not on a business tour. In case you are wondering, just picture me as a man who never have to work for a living. My only deep abiding interest these days is Krishnamurti's agenda to bring about human change.>

I have seen quite a few here, who don't have to work for a living. But they don't seem to have your kind of passion either.

I have always liked discussing with people who share an interest in Krishnmaurti even though meaningful dialogue is few and far between. The present topic on education is of deep interest to me as I have been harboring the idea, for some time now, of starting a project of some kind involving the upbringing of children. By the way, I do share your views (quoted below) and would like them explored within the context of Terrence's topic. It was those questions of yours that stalled the project.>

I would be glad, if you find my discovery worthy of further investigation.

Prasanna P wrote: In this regard I may humbly like to state the following: 1. The change is necessary and possible only in adults....... Could you expand a little on Points 1 above? Point 2 and 3 are self-explanatory to me.>

18 to 20 years of age is necessary for humans to develop psychologically and to develop their individual personalities. Till then, they are either adolescents or children. They can't have an intellectual, societal or world view till then. Their vision is limited to their physical daily needs and persons around them and hence, they can't grasp the problem of adults. Even if they hear the problems of adults, they can't make head or tail of it. William Hazlitt's essay "On feeling of immortality in youth", gives a general idea of this, although not from K's point of view. Children's problems are centered around their daily needs, and hence they seek solutions only to them.

The basic problems of adults aren't physical, but are intellectual or knowledge oriented. They arise from false or even disproportionate perception of hurt, triggering undesirable and matching intellectual responses leading to chaos.

Fragmentation has made the Operating Intelligence weak, resulting in inaccurate perception of new and challenging situations. Inaccurate perception arouses false and disproportionate natural, biological defensive urges that dominate the Operating Intelligence, due to its weakness.

Religious, nationalistic or any other ideological intellectual education given in child hood fortunately has little effect on children, adolescents or youth. If it was even half effective, then perhaps mankind would have been in a much deeper mess by now.

However, this should not deter any one planning to teach about conditioning or K-biography as it will at least be of some academic interest to children, which serves as an early introduction to those, who may pursue further later. Only the desired objective can't be met.

And my answer to the interview question you requested is no, I don't think Krishnamurti's work will die away.>

Partly, I agree with you. K's pioneering revelation of the possibility of absolute and unconditional freedom to mankind will remain unsurpassed. However, mankind's efforts to achieve that freedom may remain fruitless, as long as some of the discrepancies in the teachings remain.

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

Prasanna P wrote:

Yiming Zhang wrote:

am not on a business tour. In case you are wondering, just picture me as a man who never have to work for a living. My only deep abiding interest these days is Krishnamurti's agenda to bring about human change.>

I have seen quite a few here, who don't have to work for a living. But they don't seem to have your kind of passion either.

I have always liked discussing with people who share an interest in Krishnmaurti even though meaningful dialogue is few and far between. The present topic on education is of deep interest to me as I have been harboring the idea, for some time now, of starting a project of some kind involving the upbringing of children. By the way, I do share your views (quoted below) and would like them explored within the context of Terrence's topic. It was those questions of yours that stalled the project.>

I would be glad, if you find my discovery worthy of further investigation.

Prasanna P wrote: In this regard I may humbly like to state the following: 1. The change is necessary and possible only in adults....... Could you expand a little on Points 1 above? Point 2 and 3 are self-explanatory to me.>

18 to 20 years of age is necessary for humans to develop psychologically and to develop their individual personalities. Till then, they are either adolescents or children. They can't have an intellectual, societal or world view till then. Their vision is limited to their physical daily needs and persons around them and hence, they can't grasp the problem of adults. Even if they hear the problems of adults, they can't make head or tail of it. William Hazlitt's essay "On feeling of immortality in youth", gives a general idea of this, although not from K's point of view. Children's problems are centered around their daily needs, and hence they seek solutions only to them.

The basic problems of adults aren't physical, but are intellectual or knowledge oriented. They arise from false or even disproportionate perception of hurt, triggering undesirable and matching intellectual responses leading to chaos.

Fragmentation has made the Operating Intelligence weak, resulting in inaccurate perception of new and challenging situations. Inaccurate perception arouses false and disproportionate natural, biological defensive urges that dominate the Operating Intelligence, due to its weakness.

Religious, nationalistic or any other ideological intellectual education given in child hood fortunately has little effect on children, adolescents or youth. If it was even half effective, then perhaps mankind would have been in a much deeper mess by now.

However, this should not deter any one planning to teach about conditioning or K-biography as it will at least be of some academic interest to children, which serves as an early introduction to the ose, who may pursue further later. Only the desired objective can't be met.

And my answer to the interview question you requested is no, I don't think Krishnamurti's work will die away.>

Partly, I agree with you. K's pioneering revelation of the possibility of absolute and unconditional freedom to mankind will remain unsurpassed. However, mankind's efforts to achieve that freedom may remain fruitless, as long as some of the discrepancies in the teachings remain.

I have responded to your post on my new thread so not disturb this forum. I also deleted all my postings from both of Terrence's threads... Now lets all move on....that is the intelligent thing to do or we have learnt nothing from the teaching. It is only the image we have about ourself that is hurting and image is nothing at all.
The past is the past.

Life is relationship

Eve, I'm kind of wondering what happened to everyone myself. I put my two cents worth in regarding conditioning and what I would like to see in a school. Nothing, no response. I'm not sure anyone really wants to openly discuss conditioning.

There is a lot of ego on this site. Personally, I am not pissed, hurt, insulted or anything else. Let's talk. David Loucks

David Loucks wrote:

Eve, I'm kind of wondering what happened to everyone myself. I put my two cents worth in regarding conditioning and what I would like to see in a school. Nothing, no response. I'm not sure anyone really wants to openly discuss conditioning.

There is a lot of ego on this site. Personally, I am not pissed, hurt, insulted or anything else. Let's talk. David Loucks

Sure :) finally signs of intelligence. Conditioning does not want to talk about conditioning.

Life is relationship

Hi David,
Don't lose heart. If any thing hasn't worked so far, like 'deconditioning of children through teaching', it may be so, because it may not be possible in the set up of nature. Don't take my words as final. Work out for yourself. If you find time, see my reply to eve on her thread. Let us talk after that.
Prasanna

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

David,
Your views on education about conditioning were the most straight forward and intelligent I have heard. I greatly appreciate the simplicity and directness of that. It makes sense as it was what K was asking for.
Best, Terrence

Peace will forever remain an ideal until the roots of conflict are understood

Terrence Webster-Doyle wrote:

My name is Terrence Webster-Doyle and as I said before I was asked by Krishnamurti to take over as the headmaster of the Oak Grove School in 1984 replacing Mark Lee who became the head of KFA. I started a debate on whether or not the Oak Grove school was actually teaching the insights K had about conditioning. I questioned that for I feel questioning is a healthy process to get the truth of something. But I felt that the dialogue on Kinfonet immediately got off course with some people speculating about various things not related to the question at hand and therefore I feel that the debate was fragmented and not focused. What I would like to attempt to do here is to stay focused on what a school would look like that actually taught K's insights in education about conditioned thinking. I would like to see what the school would do on a daily basis? What would the curriculum be like in detail? What training would the teachers have? How would conditioning be incorporated into the overall curriculum? How would one incorporate understanding conditioning into the conventional academic subjects? What practical and relevant context would be needed to demonstrate conditioning on a daily basis at the school in relationship? At what age should this start and how, not the how of a method but the how of "mirroring" conditioning as it is happening in the moment? What would be the process of learning that would have to take place in order to have conditioning understood intellectually and at the same time experientially? I want to get to particulars and not intellectualize about extraneous matters unrelated to the detailed structure and make up of a model school, not as an ideal but as an actuality that one could take as a working hypothesis and create such a school. As I said in the other debate about the Oak Grove School I want to bring to life such an education. I feel my wife and I made an attempt to do this with the Atrium School we started in Ojai the same year I left the Oak Grove. I would like to share this experience with you. So if you enter this debate please stay on track. Please don't get carried away by abstract dissertations about what K said or not or go off on some quasi spiritual or philosophical speculation. I would greatly appreciate if you would share your observations on such a school so we can together at least "on paper" create such a place of intelligence.

Randal Shacklett wrote:
But isn't your whole proposed premise, "spritual speculation"? Just on face value, it directly contridicts the essence of everything K talked about. You are trying to conceive of a utopian K future, and from there, act to make it reality. Which is absurd because, as you may have heard, "there is no becoming". I hope you don't mind me falling so far off topic.

That is a very astute comment Randal.

There is a common tendency, from the limitation of the known - for the self to dream up some idealistic state of being and then to strive towards fulfilling it. This is quite clearly 'becoming', as you say, and demonstrates all that K warned against.

One cannot 'teach K's insights'. The teaching is not about that, as it can only be mimicry to try to 'teach K's insights'.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:

Randal Shacklett wrote:
But isn't your whole proposed premise, "spritual speculation"? Just on face value, it directly contridicts the essence of everything K talked about. You are trying to conceive of a utopian K future, and from there, act to make it reality. Which is absurd because, as you may have heard, "there is no becoming". I hope you don't mind me falling so far off topic.

That is a very astute comment Randal.

There is a common tendency, from the limitation of the known - for the self to dream up some idealistic state of being and then to strive towards fulfilling it. This is quite clearly 'becoming', as you say, and demonstrates all that K warned against.

One cannot 'teach K's insights'. The teaching is not about that, as it can only be mimicry to try to 'teach K's insights'.

All right, all right, I'll get serious.
What is this common tendency you mention? You mean there are commonalities that we might explore? Why does the mind perpetually dream up these opposites and strive to become them? How can an idea/belief/opinion/memory, which is just like a photograhic recording, become/evolve into, anything other than another idea? And so no change at all.

This post was last updated by Randal Shacklett (account deleted) Fri, 10 Jul 2009.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:

Randal Shacklett wrote:
But isn't your whole proposed premise, "spritual speculation"? Just on face value, it directly contridicts the essence of everything K talked about. You are trying to conceive of a utopian K future, and from there, act to make it reality. Which is absurd because, as you may have heard, "there is no becoming". I hope you don't mind me falling so far off topic.

That is a very astute comment Randal.

There is a common tendency, from the limitation of the known - for the self to dream up some idealistic state of being and then to strive towards fulfilling it. This is quite clearly 'becoming', as you say, and demonstrates all that K warned against.

One cannot 'teach K's insights'. The teaching is not about that, as it can only be mimicry to try to 'teach K's insights'.

Hi Pat....K wanted the schools to teach awareness of conditoning, this is the reason he set up the schools. I dont think he wanted to teach insight of course you can not teach that. But to teach children to see conditioning K said is a smiple thing and I tend to agree with him I do this all the time in class.

Life is relationship

Eve Goodmon wrote:

Patricia Hemingway wrote:

Randal Shacklett wrote:
But isn't your whole proposed premise, "spritual speculation"? Just on face value, it directly contridicts the essence of everything K talked about. You are trying to conceive of a utopian K future, and from there, act to make it reality. Which is absurd because, as you may have heard, "there is no becoming". I hope you don't mind me falling so far off topic.

That is a very astute comment Randal.

There is a common tendency, from the limitation of the known - for the self to dream up some idealistic state of being and then to strive towards fulfilling it. This is quite clearly 'becoming', as you say, and demonstrates all that K warned against.

One cannot 'teach K's insights'. The teaching is not about that, as it can only be mimicry to try to 'teach K's insights'.

Hi Pat....K wanted the schools to teach awareness of conditoning, this is the reason he set up the schools. I dont think he wanted to teach insight of course you can not teach that. But to teach children to see conditioning K said is a smiple thing and I tend to agree with him I do this all the time in class.

Randal Shacklett wrote:
If one is aware of and has a deep fundamental understanding of the structure and nature of conditioned response, and was able to "teach" that, why isn't there a wave of enlightenment/transformation sweeping over the K grads? Or your pupils? I am afraid you have misunderstood K's words and intent.

I dont think so. K says this at each of the schools he visited. He created schoos for that reason to have students look at what is conditioning....It is simple to see conditioned response it is however not so simple to end it.

I think a change has happen in many areas not only in K schools they are not the transformation that k was talking about but there is change.

Life is relationship

Eve Goodmon wrote:

Randal Shacklett wrote:
If one is aware of and has a deep fundamental understanding of the structure and nature of conditioned response, and was able to "teach" that, why isn't there a wave of enlightenment/transformation sweeping over the K grads? Or your pupils? I am afraid you have misunderstood K's words and intent.

I dont think so. K says this at each of the schools he visited. He created schoos for that reason to have students look at what is conditioning....It is simple to see conditioned response it is however not so simple to end it.

I think a change has happen in many areas not only in K schools they are not the transformation that k was talking about but there is change.

The answer of course, is a seeing based on accumlation and accounting, which one can find in any business school or other such institutions of achievement. So tell me again, how K condoned this type of insanity, "at each of the schools he visited".

Randal Shacklett wrote:
What is this common tendency you mention? You mean there are commonalities that we might explore? Why does the mind perpetually dream up these opposites and strive to become them? How can an idea/belief/opinion/memory, which is just like a photograhic recording, become/evolve into, anything other than another idea? And so no change at all.

The commonality is the deeply entrenched conditioned response of 'becoming' - yes. One has to understand the movement of that - stay with it and not move away into becoming.

K used to speak of remaining up against the brick wall. Becoming is moving away from being stuck at that wall - desiring to feel as though one is 'doing something'. Remain at the wall. Do nothing. How difficult is that!

Randal Shacklett wrote:

Eve Goodmon wrote:

Randal Shacklett wrote:
If one is aware of and has a deep fundamental understanding of the structure and nature of conditioned response, and was able to "teach" that, why isn't there a wave of enlightenment/transformation sweeping over the K grads? Or your pupils? I am afraid you have misunderstood K's words and intent.

I dont think so. K says this at each of the schools he visited. He created schoos for that reason to have students look at what is conditioning....It is simple to see conditioned response it is however not so simple to end it.

I think a change has happen in many areas not only in K schools they are not the transformation that k was talking about but there is change.

Thinking about, in other words, hoping for change, is not change. Just look at the last U.S. Presidential elections. ;o) Eve, my friend, what kind of seeing, doesn't lead one to a deeper exploration? If one embarks into a deeper exploration, why is it "not so simple to end it"?

The answer of course, is a seeing based on accumlation and accounting, which one can find in any business school or other such institutions of achievement. So tell me again, how K condoned this type of insanity, "at each of the schools he visited".

He created more and more schools which he visited all the time this is a fact. If you are invested in results then he would have stopped talking and creating schools.

We need to question everything including K. All seeing leads to futher exploration yes. but even using the word lead is in time....If seeing ends all time and becoming.

Life is relationship

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
K used to speak of remaining up against the brick wall. Becoming is moving away from being stuck at that wall - desiring to feel as though one is 'doing something'. Remain at the wall. Do nothing. How difficult is that!

.very difficult....especially when one expects results....But when one watches thought what happens? If the obeserver is the observed and one does not act upon it what happens?

Life is relationship