Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

What does it mean...to be resonable?


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 330 in total
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #31
Thumb_deleted_user_med Muad dhib Ireland 175 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

logic such a wonderful word....I passed many test of logic the famous IQ ,when I was 18 , I got 148 which is much above the average so they say...this was a problem when I was trying to refuse the army, they tried not to let me go , well it worked :)

yes and so what ? nothing at all , who cares about that ? Well in a collective intelligent world by taste , all are welcome anyway because when I am found of my life , I meet others, I share , when in our world only some has the divine right to live , we are just a bunch of insane nuts ,with or without a fantastic level of logic...

In my view it is just a component of what makes what we call thinking to function , it is there to make thinking possible with many other program , and yes it may be reasonably reasonable so logic is in every brain .
And one thing which is vital to perceive is that there is not one logic , there are many logic, the universe in its great wisdom seems to enjoy a world caught in diversity, when the elites of today would love men to be 500 000 million on earth having one single logic thought : work for the most insane of us...

So definitively logic, like analysing , the all thinking process is definitively caught in the same corner as we are, because it is us...

A reasonable logic ,which would be the limit of thinking for me ,so very limited anyway would not bear our world as it is. So we are not even in a reasonable logic, as we are all voluntary blind to the everyday horror, insanity and brutality of mankind....actively or passively...

Dan.....

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #32
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
An emotional reaction indeed. A need for approval perhaps Paul?

It was an ironic reaction, Patricia, not an emotional one. But, never mind.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #33
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Ravi Seth wrote:
Kindly inform the same in your own words i.e. the perception with holistic passion you spoke of.

I already informed you with my own words, Ravi. But you did not like them so I fed you a little K-syrup.

I said that logic has no passion or energy of its own and so it serves any master. This is consistant with all my previous postings on this site. I have often pointed out that logic is based upon precept and precept is supplied from elsewhere. And this 'elsewhere' is either a genuine and passionate interest to know something new or an emotional interest in proving what one already supposes. But to be open to the new already demands a certain amount of integration, wholeness.

But some people here seem to have vast illusions in reason, logic and so-called scientic and technological thought. I think that fear is stalking behind such sentiment.

Thought creates knowledge. Passion brings meaning. Only knowledge and meaning combined bring what we call understanding. And only understanding raises us up. All else is mediocracy.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #34
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
It was an ironic reaction, Patricia, not an emotional one. But, never mind.

ironic reaction is an emotion.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 3 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #35
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1929 posts in this forum Offline

Yes - any reaction is an emotion.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #36
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
I have often pointed out that logic is based upon precept and precept is supplied from elsewhere. And this 'elsewhere' is either a genuine and passionate interest to know something new or an emotional interest in proving what one already supposes.

If one may so inquire which of these supposed precept's is the above post an example of? One see's no question marks which would indicate interest to know [see] something new? Then perhaps it falls into the second supposition..an emotional interest in proving what one already supposes?:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #37
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Ravi Seth wrote:
ironic reaction is an emotion.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Yes - any reaction is an emotion.

Including agreement!

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #38
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
I already informed you with my own words, Ravi. But you did not like them so I fed you a little K-syrup.

excellent reply as usual at what you are good at.

Paul Davidson wrote:
I said that logic has no passion or energy of its own and so it serves any master. This is consistant with all my previous postings on this site. I have often pointed out that logic is based upon precept and precept is supplied from elsewhere. And this 'elsewhere' is either a genuine and passionate interest to know something new or an emotional interest in proving what one already supposes. But to be open to the new already demands a certain amount of integration, wholeness.

If you can make any head and tail of what you have replied, i raise the stake to 1000 $.

My dear Paul Davidson, I am not oblivious to your talent.You are quick witted smart.Your one liners say many a things which long paragraphs you quote don't.Please i am giving you the brotherly advice.Don't entangle yourself in things you know nothing of.

'k' also tried cracking jokes. You know what happened?

He created silence instead.

you are creating the reverse.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #39
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

RICK LEIN wrote:
One see's no question marks which would indicate interest to know [see] something new?

Does the question mark at the end of your observation here indicate a question or is it merely a holier-than-thou posture of questioning?

RICK LEIN wrote:
Then perhaps it falls into the second supposition..an emotional interest in proving what one already supposes?:)

No Rick, I am stating an obvious fact. I am not expounding a logic.

It is a fact that logic has no passion, no independent motive source. It serves, but the source has to come from elsewhere. I have seen this as fact and do not have to pose a question.

I quoted K earlier, because he already said it better that I, and also because if I say it I get reactions whereasif K says it people fall in praise. It is because K is given authority.

But K pointed out the role of logic is to communicate what has been seen. Meaning comes first and logic unfurls it in order tocommunicate it. But toooften people believe that logic can lead to meaning or to understanding.

K said, "Do not start from logic . . . see the fact first and then use logic to communicate it."

And that is all I have been saying. Logic serves. And if it does not serve true meaning then it serves self-interest. Logic is mechanical. It is thought. As with all mechines, it needs to run smoothly. But it cannot choose its own direction. Logic is always a governed capacity. I am asking that its governance be taken into consideration. To whom does it serve?

Logic is thought/time. It is a transmission belt for the locomotion of thought.

Science has built an alter to it. We worship capacity.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Mon, 12 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #40
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Ravi Seth wrote:
If you can make any head and tail of what you have replied, i raise the stake to 1000 $.
My dear Paul Davidson, I am not oblivious to your talent.You are quick witted smart.Your one liners say many a things which long paragraphs you quote don't.Please i am giving you the brotherly advice.Don't entangle yourself in things you know nothing of.

Ravi, this is quite wormy!

I am used to the fact that often when people give flattery they conceal their resentments and jealosies. But to bring the two emotions together, as you have done, is no more elegent than keeping them apart.

FYI: I am not 'entangled.'

But Ravi, what about you? I have made some points. I have quoted K. You have done little more than sneer at it. You cannot muster something better? Please, at least, state your disagreement with me,if you have any. Don't hide behind personalizations.

You see, Rick, Ravi asks questions but when he receives answeres he only sneers. Personally I prefer questions when the questioner is actually burning with the interest to know. I disdain all these tricky questions only desigened to catch an honest person out. Ravi wants to waste my time and he will not do so.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #41
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
No Rick, I am stating an obvious fact. I am not expounding a logic.

It is a fact that logic has no passion, no independent motive source. It serves, but the source has to come from elsewhere. I have seen this as fact and do not have to pose a question.

Of course no question need be asked..when you have the conclusion you already know..and it follows that the passion you speak of..to see something new is not there,but rather an interest in proving what one supposes from the field of knowledge..the known..from memory?:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #42
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
Personally I prefer

Something other than what is? Prefer is choice/conflict..personally I prefer this instead of that?:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #43
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

RICK LEIN wrote:
Of course no question need be asked..when you have the conclusion you already know

No, Rick, it is you who are concluding that it is a conclusion on my part and not something I am actually seeing, factually, at the moment of writing. Please at least allow for that possibility in your argumentation or you fall into an illogic of your own concluding.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #44
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

RICK LEIN wrote:
Something other than what is? Prefer is choice/conflict..personally I prefer this instead of that?:)

Yes, exactly, and why not? I personally prefer to answer questions where the questioner is interested to find something out, not merely to prove their own points.

Look, Ravi asked me to elaborate on a point.I said I would not elaborate. That was my personal preference because I did not think his request was based upon any genuine desire to know what I meant. He only wanted the chance to dismiss it, which is exactly what he did, even without the elaboration.

For me that is quite simple and I have nothing to defend about making that choice.

And your tone continues to be self-righteous, Rick. You are saying I should not be making choices, as if you do not. You are saying I should not make emphatic statements, as if you do not. You and Patricia are a pair!

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #45
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

RICK LEIN wrote:
and it follows that the passion you speak of..to see something new is not there,but rather an interest in proving what one supposes from the field of knowledge..the known..from memory

This, Rick, is an example of logic unfolding from a precept.

"It follows" suggests a logical unfolding.But what you are unfolding is only your own conclusion that I was preceeding from a conclusion.

It is logic, but based upon the wrong a-priori conclusion. As I said, logic is a whore that will service any master. You started with a conclusion and proceeded, by logic, to arrive back at the same starting point. This is called teleological logic. The dog eats its own tail and disappears up its own rectum. A very clever trick to be sure, once learned never repeated.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #46
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

RICK LEIN wrote:
Of course no question need be asked..when you have the conclusion you already know..and it follows that the passion you speak of..to see something new is not there,but rather an interest in proving what one supposes from the field of knowledge..the known..from memory?

I just noticed, Rick, that you have put another amusing little question mark at the end of your boldly pejorative statement.

Maybe I should adopt that practice, if it suits you??

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Mon, 12 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #47
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
No, Rick, it is you who are concluding t

Paul Davidson wrote:
And your tone continues to be self-righteous, Rick. You are saying I should not be making choices, as if you do not. You are saying I should not make emphatic statements, as if you do not. You and Patricia are a pair!

LOL:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #48
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
It is logic, but based upon the wrong a-priori conclusion.

As in Personally..I prefer?:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #49
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
For me that is quite simple and I have nothing to defend about making that choice.

And I will prove that by posting 3 or 4 reactions in defense of my choice..which needs no defense?:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #50
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
Please at least allow for that possibility in your argumentation or you fall into an illogic of your own concluding.

Well..the thread started off being about..what is reasonable? Allowance of possibility seems reasonable enough..would you be willing to take the above statement and allow for the reasonable possibility that the questioning of statements of a conclusive nature are open to discussion?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #51
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 749 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

'Thought creates knowledge. Passion brings meaning. Only knowledge and meaning combined bring what we call understanding. And only understanding raises us up. All else is mediocracy.'

Indeed Paul!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #52
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
Rick. You are saying I should not be making choices, as if you do not. You are saying I should not make emphatic statements, as if you do not. You and Patricia are a pair!

Dear Paul..Rick questioned what choice is...not should or should not.I also did not say you should not make empathic statements either..what I did do was question your assumption[s] in the matter being discussed.And I ask not to be tricky..but because we are exploring this together as friends..somehow or other the personal has been interjected again...:(

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #53
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 749 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

'Which also shows that those attached to their image of K are also quite capable of wallowing.'

Great! :-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #54
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

NO LOGIC:

Because crow cried, I read a bread when eating computer, that time, laughing became habit of shoe, when Mr mina ice cream was too hot.. that Rick train started flying on tail.

I don't know

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #55
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

dhirendra singh wrote:
Because crow cried, I read a bread when eating computer, that time, laughing became habit of shoe, when Mr mina ice cream was too hot.. that Rick train started flying on tail.

WTF? LOL:)
Thanks D:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 3 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #56
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
He only wanted the chance to dismiss it, which is exactly what he did, even without the elaboration.
Do you mean without the lengthy self justification? The question is do we engage in the same behaviors?:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #57
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Paul,

In your post #33, you wrote, "And only understanding raises us up."

Where does "understanding" get us?

Of course we must understand things, and I'm not denying that understanding is absolutely essential in our lives. But "understanding" implies something needed to be understood and someone that does the understanding -- an understander. In other words, we have our old situation of separation, difference, lack of unity, time, and all the messiness of existence.

Understanding, it would appear, is really great for getting around in this world -- essential. But does it really have much to do with unity and the timeless present?

It doesn't appear to me that understanding is synonymous with intelligence/love/action, which are of the timeless present. If understanding is not a unity with the present, no amount of understanding will change the fact.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #58
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Where does "understanding" get us?

We are looking at self-knowledge, right? We are not concerned here with understanding gravity or micro-economics, but the human condition, the human psychology, are we not? Because it is evident, I think, that our behaviors are illogical and lead to misery and out of this we start to ask why? I want to know why I behave as I do. What underlies my action? I want to understand - to see what stands under. Right? Is that not where we start from? Am I wrong in this?

Krishnamurti sets out his table. He says to me, "to know and to understand yourself, from moment to moment, is all you need." The truth will set you free.

So, I am investigating that proposal with all my heart, with all my soul and with all my might. Maybe I will get nowhere, either because I was not truly interested in it enough, or l lacked the energy to carry it through, or because K was duping me all along. Maybe I will live long enough to find out.

How about you, Max.

K was saying that understanding and self-knowing, if holistic, will change you, radically mutate 'what is'. But, he said, if that understanding is only verbal, intellectual, fragmented, it will become a poison inside you. So, we are set an incredibly high standard.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #59
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
But "understanding" implies something needed to be understood and someone that does the understanding -- an understander.

No, one may give the word that implication, but it is not there of itself. When you have truly understood something, there is no division between the object of that understanding and the subject, no separate one who understands. You are That.

I think you may be referring to the applied effort to understand something, which creates a division between subject and object. And you would be right in that. But did we not all start from that point? Because we need to know, yet commence from a divided state. And does not K help us to cut through that particular confusion?

It is inevitable that the human being starts his/her quest from division. All our questions begin by being framed wronglyand we have to work through all of that. There are few blinding revelations along the lonely road to self-knowing. It is a hard slog, or as K put it, arduous (uphill).

As we understand that effort is not the way forward, we might find that understanding, in itself, is the motor of transformation. But intellectual appreciation is not holistic comprehension.

And, unless we fully understand the workings of our own minds we will continue to be tripped up by those workings at every stage and trapped in ignorance. In that condition we will never go beyond that limitation.

K said that the purpose of man is to find God but that we never shall while we are steeped in ignorance of our own workings.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Sep 2011 #60
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Understanding, it would appear, is really great for getting around in this world -- essential. But does it really have much to do with unity and the timeless present?

Yes, it would seem to have everything to do with unity. Fragmentation is based upon ignorance. Understanding clears the ground of confusion and ALLOWS the arising of integral action.

Understanding does not create unity but is an absolute precondition for its arising. How can unity arise in confusion?

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 330 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)