This notion of "psychological thought" has to be examined by those who consider themselves "serious". You've gulped down everything K said without bothering to masticate it. He was a pretty strange fellow and he had his own peculiar way of putting things and of classifying, and this is why he told you to "tear it all up" and find out for yourself.

Is there a type of thought that has no place? Thoughts are misplaced all the time, but is it a problem? If you spontaneously form an image of some fool as an ass, have you made a mistake? You know that nobody is literally how they're portrayed and that figuratively the shoe may fit, so the only question is whether you should communicate it because there is no question as to whether it should have occurred in the first place. Thoughts occur and there's nothing to be done about it. For the most part, "stream of consciousness" is an endlessly flowing river of rubbish that dribbles off here and there to create backwaters of bilge like this forum.

Thoughts are mostly junk to be sifted through discerningly, and not according to K or any idea of what should be. You're either discerning or you're bloated and weighted down with ideas and beliefs.

This post was last updated by lidlo lady Mon, 16 Jan 2012.

Yes - more light entertainment from on top of the high horse.

More braying from the ass.

The ongoing endless shadow-play of images. Boring!

You're just jealous because you've banned images from your arid, vapid, K-addled brain.

lidlo lady wrote:
He was a pretty strange fellow

Oh yes, I am pretty sure he must have seemed something short of an alien to many, many people.

Why am I not surprised ...?

T

lol - and your never-ending judgements continue to be just so boring. Light entertainment at its lowest ebb, completely lacking in insight.

And so predictable!

Apparently "predictable" is the best you can do.

It is pretty dramatically deadly!

You're degenerating. It's a good strategy for getting the last word.

As you prove constantly.

You'll say anything. You're despicable.

It's interesting that no one challenges anything I've said here. All we get is K-patty's sniping without any criticism.

Thought does what it will. There is no right or wrong thought, no "thought that has no place", no "psychological thought". There's just thought, and it's all images, symbols, representations and opinions.

The problem is not that we have thoughts we shouldn't have, but there isn't intelligence enough to see thought for what it is. This is why we depend on authorities to tell us what to do, how to think. Just put K aside for a minute and find out if you even have a mind of your own.

lidlo lady wrote:
It's interesting that no one challenges anything I've said here.

I think we are just taking a collective breath here.

You do sap up a lot of energy...

T

lidlo lady wrote:
It's interesting that no one challenges anything I've said here.

Pardon???

All we get is K-patty's sniping without any criticism.

I have told you already - I do not come here to criticize and insult. Only to reveal the games that thought plays.

And it is you who insist upon being the prime example.

lidlo lady wrote:
It's interesting that no one challenges anything I've said here. All we get is K-patty's sniping without any criticism.

Mirror you are a waste of energy....you are an idea which its time expired.

Is it interesting? Do you get the message?

B Teulada wrote:
I think we are just taking a collective breath here.

You do sap up a lot of energy...

You think? How long before it gets it?

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
I have told you already - I do not come here to criticize and insult. Only to reveal the games that thought plays.

You don't know what criticism is. Look it up.

i am dismayed at your pretence, and cannot put that understanding with that of man, all the carping that goes on after the first discourse by lidlo,
would surely rest in the mind as peaceful. you lie, you are all watching the birds, and have not define the collective human as the self,

alot of these conversations are derisary to common feeling, have no notion of what is real about human kind, and are like reports of a culture vendetta against sacred texts, because you won't admit you are human.

the term psychological thought, probably is thought caught in time, but also the meaning of thought which through time and measure has no actual ground, because people would no long admit they are human kind. i do not know where your contemporary refulsion of natural sense, started, but you, that is many on this forum, do not support how humans speak. can you get back to the whole question of life, because your esteem is not raise by disgust , and yours has no memory, and is a doughnut, the sort surrounded by stupid people, with no critical understanding of a societal shape, your talk hangs lilke baskets, where your daisy dreams, are jokes , of a summer you wouldn't bask in. well that's me for the night, see you all and as you found out that company is hard to come by, work out the weather first and continue on into the morning with your jokes, because common sense willed you better.

for you homework find out more about reality, it is simple. man is of all men, a human is one of his human beings.

frank

the messiah

lidlo lady wrote:
You don't know what criticism is. Look it up.

Those who can - do. Those who cannot - criticize.

lidlo lady wrote:
Thought does what it will.

True.However does it not get you into trouble?Do you go with the the thought that troubles you? Don't you get out of it?Yes, you pick up some othier thought?It is certain that you play with thoughts.You play as you feel it.Inteligence would tell you that you distinghush the thoughts based on your like and dislike.So there is need for distinghushing a thought that works well with materail aspects and a thought based on your like and dislike.Thought has to be understood in the context of our personal feelings, that it keeps playing with.or we allow the thought to take over complete life.Is there no scope for a psychological thought to be generated?

I am that Iam.

You are always welcome to live your life with the thought as you like it.

I am that Iam.

lidlo lady wrote:
but there isn't intelligence enough to see thought for what it is.

That intelligence has been telling people that thought has its own limits.One must know the way the thought plays on our consciousness.

I am that Iam.

lidlo lady wrote:
This is why we depend on authorities to tell us what to do, how to think.

The authority could be for those who view the thought as you mention it or as authority that people who believe in jk.You can speak for thought as opposed to the psychological thought.Discussion must ultimatly help us undestand the thought.

I am that Iam.

frank ajai wrote:
for you homework find out more about reality,

to present reality with confused tinge of clarity.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

First off,

your talk hangs lilke baskets, where your daisy dreams, are jokes , of a summer you wouldn't bask in...

That is a wonderful image, and I mean that seriously. thank you Frank.

and second,

Lidio, what determines the bandwidth of your discernment? What filters play into it? In the case that the gold is separated from the sand what is your starting point for considering one as being more worthy of acknowledging than the other.

Though this does not seem like the best forum to start in, the question did occur to me, so there it is.

Thanks
Brendejo

If you want to make that distinction, be clear about why. Whether your pleasure and discomfort come from thoughts or facts matters less than what pleasure and discomfort mean to you. Why do you always return to the same things? Why do you have to keep going over things? Why do you believe in making up your mind?

You're operating in a groove, so it matters less how you stimulate your grooving than why you can't stop.

This post was last updated by lidlo lady Mon, 30 Jan 2012.

You're too young for Krishnamurti. Go have your fun.

brendejo o wrote:
Lidio, what determines the bandwidth of your discernment? What filters play into it?

I don't know how to fashion a satisfactory answer to this question because I don't know enough about bandwidth and filters.