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

First time I find a crack in K's reasoning


Displaying all 26 posts
Page 1 of 1
Sun, 04 Mar 2018 #1
Thumb_stringio BTeulada II Portugal 18 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

link text

At 8:15 K says: 'Look at it (loneliness). When you look at it, if you look at it as an observer looking in, then again the problem arises, but the fact is that loneliness is you, so you have to look at it without the observer, as a whole. When you do that, completely loneliness disappears totally, never to come back.'

But, wait. The original question (in the video) was how to see (not intellectually) that the observer is the observed. K's answer: by looking at it completely, wholly, without the separation observer/observed ('not as an observer looking in').

So now I am lost. Anyone else here having the feeling that this reasoning is as circular as they come?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Mar 2018 #2
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 1230 posts in this forum Offline

BTeulada II wrote:
So now I am lost. Anyone else here having the feeling that this reasoning is as circular as they come?

I guess I don't see the "circular reasoning" that you do. The key to me here is that once you see that you are the loneliness , it's you and you are it, the whole reaction of 'escaping' it, changing it etc. disappears. I can't 'escape' myself! But I don't 'see' that so the 'observer, me, is always "looking in" comparing, judging. I can understand all this "intellectually" but to actually "remain with" the sensation called loneliness and to see totally that I am that complicated sensation is what we have been conditioned not to do. We are conditioned to escape, to want something different than any state that is uncomfortable. Learning about how I escape is my limited understanding of K.s teaching.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Mar 2018 #3
Thumb_stringio BTeulada II Portugal 18 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dan McDermott wrote:
I guess I don't see the "circular reasoning" that you do. The key to me here is that once you see that you are the loneliness , it's you and you are it, the whole reaction of 'escaping' it, changing it etc. disappears. I can't 'escape' myself! But I don't 'see' that so the 'observer, me, is always "looking in" comparing, judging. I can understand all this "intellectually" but to actually "remain with" the sensation called loneliness and to see totally that I am that complicated sensation is what we have been conditioned not to do. We are conditioned to escape, to want something different than any state that is uncomfortable. Learning about how I escape is my limited understanding of K.s teaching.

But have you watched the video? Is not long, you may want to watch it. Because the question was not, what happens after it is seen that the observer is the observed, but how to get to that point where it is seen that the observer is the observed.

And K replies that, for instance, with loneliness, once you see that loneliness is you then it disappears. Ok, thanks, but, again, the questioner's question was not what happens after the division observer/observed disappears, but how to make it disappear.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Mar 2018 #4
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 1230 posts in this forum Offline

BTeulada II wrote:
the questioner's question was not what happens after the division observer/observed disappears, but how to make it disappear.

Yes I watched the video. Are you asking why he didn't say "how" to come to that realization that the observer is the observed? Didn't he answer that rather passionately when he said "remain" with that emotion, don't run from it? See that it is you, not separate...? (Which would be to realize that you as observer are not 'outside' the 'loneliness'.) And If you see that, he says, it disappears?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 05 Mar 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Mar 2018 #5
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5029 posts in this forum Offline

BTeulada II wrote:
So now I am lost. Anyone else here having the feeling that this reasoning is as circular as they come?

Were the things that Krishnamurti discovered and discussed/pointed out to the people who were willing to listen based on reason and logic or where they things he saw as facts, reality? I don't see the point you are trying to make.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Mon, 05 Mar 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Mar 2018 #6
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 264 posts in this forum Offline

BTeulada II wrote:
The original question (in the video) was how to see (not intellectually) that the observer is the observed. K's answer: by looking at it completely, wholly, without the separation observer/observed ('not as an observer looking in').

Logically, that is intellectually, it is circular: the way to see wholly is to see wholly. But the only way in is direct experience.

He walks you through it with the example of loneliness, which by definition begins with separation: Loneliness is the feeling of separation.

The person and the loneliness seem different. Are they? You have to look. "I" feel like a step back observer that can look at "my" loneliness." But obviously it's all me. Intellectually I know this but I am still split.

So you have to investigate. Can you fully be lonely with no trying to change it? Can you fully be? Can you and all your thinking apparatus dissolve into it?

Only direct exploration for yourself is of any importance.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 3 readers
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Mar 2018 #7
Thumb_stringio BTeulada II Portugal 18 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

idiot ? wrote:
Logically, that is intellectually, it is circular: the way to see wholly is to see wholly. But the only way in is direct experience.

He walks you through it with the example of loneliness, which by definition begins with separation: Loneliness is the feeling of separation.

The person and the loneliness seem different. Are they? You have to look. "I" feel like a step back observer that can look at "my" loneliness." But obviously it's all me. Intellectually I know this but I am still split.

So you have to investigate. Can you fully be lonely with no trying to change it? Can you fully be? Can you and all your thinking apparatus dissolve into it?

Only direct exploration for yourself is of any importance

Wow! Very interesting post, remarkable. Thank you Idiot? !

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Mar 2018 #8
Thumb_2018-01-20-120616 Daniel Paul. Ireland 89 posts in this forum Offline

BTeulada II wrote:
And K replies that, for instance, with loneliness, once you see that loneliness is you then it disappears. Ok, thanks, but, again, the questioner's question was not what happens after the division observer/observed disappears, but how to make it disappear.

Hello V..long time no "see" ..as far as I understand and live anything in this matter, how to make loneliness so sorrow disappear is precisely what is absolutely wrong to be up to with such matter...not paraphrasing k here.

And in fact the observer is the observed may usually not be lived at all, as when it is the case for real, which for me cannot be the outcome of an aim , nor of a goal, not of a search, not of a desire, etc up to not of thought or analytical process ,when it is the case that it is lived or say differently when the observer and the observed have ceased to be two elements to become one element, immediately something unmissable which is not from thought nor intellectual has then taken place..and yes sorrow of whatever causes it ,is not anymore and something else unknown of thought so not memorized nor lived before is there for some unknown time, second, minutes , more etc ..k says for good but he was apparently THE "player" in such matter so far beyond what one can find oneself , not a matter of better but a matter of fact...the notion of better will again be given eventually by thought back on the track as usual, as this is what it does too forgetting that this should be done and with great care only ,if necessary, in practical matters...

I do not know if that matches what you were trying to bring or asking here..

anyway, hope you are good in your part of the world ... ;-)

cheerio

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Fri, 09 Mar 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Mar 2018 #9
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 421 posts in this forum Offline

#1:

BTeulada II wrote:
The original question (in the video) was how to see (not intellectually) that the observer is the observed. K's answer: by looking at it completely, wholly, without the separation observer/observed ('not as an observer looking in').

So now I am lost. Anyone else here having the feeling that this reasoning is as circular as they come?

Teulada,

I don’t see it so much as circular reasoning but rather as skipping over something, namely the part where … the observer IS the observed. If I DON’T SEE that the observer is the observed, then that is the fact for me: that I am one thing, and the observed is another. If I’m blind in ANY way, it’s no good saying that I can see. False assertions inevitably cause further conflict, chaos, confusion, don’t they?

Obviously, K can’t take us by the hand and MAKE us see. He said so over and over. But if the interest is there, and if there is something in us that sees even partially the truth in what K says, we have “stay with it”, not out of choice but because that is the action life demands. What else can we do? I realize that I might be mistaken right from the start (THIS start), but your own vital interest can respond to it and point out my mistakes.

We say, “I’m the kind of person who likes or dislikes this or that”.

We say, “Part of me wants this, and part of me wants that”.

And we say, “I like such and such and I don’t like so-and-so”, and so on.

The idea is that, from birth to death (and beyond if I so believe), there is an “I”, a self, which is “neutral”, constant, unchanging, isn’t it? By “neutral” I mean that:

it is the same “neutral I” who wants “this” and who also wants “the opposite of this”...

the same “neutral I” who is happy and who is sad…

the same “neutral I” who is peaceful and who is agitated, who is visited by a succession of fear, loneliness, depression, pleasure, etc…

the same “neutral I” who was an infant, a child, a teen, an adult, an old person - all the same “me” going through the stages of life.

So that is the idea we are all educated to, isn't it? ... that the observer is separate from the observed, the experiencer is separate from the experience, the thinker is separate from the thought, and that it is up to self to manage the observed emotions and desires.

But when loneliness “comes upon me”, then “I am THAT” completely. Because WHERE is the neutral self then; how does the neutral self manifest itself then? There’s ONLY loneliness in that moment, isn’t there? When happiness comes over me, then “I am THAT completely” - no longer the “lonely me” but, in THIS moment, only “the happy me”. It is not the same “neutral constant me” who is now happy, now isolated, now angry, now afraid, is it? It never was. It’s a succession of “me’s”, isn’t it? … tied together into a “neutral constant” by time, memory, imagination.

So the observer is ever-changing - happy, sad, angry, afraid, lonely, etc. And the observed is also ever-changing. Ideas being abstractions can be adopted, modified and rejected. Even if “I thought” one thing and now “I think” another thing, the rejected idea doesn’t change. My allegiance to the idea, my perspective, my interpretation of it, changes. So if I believed in God and now I don’t, if I believed in communism and now I believe in materialism - is it the same “constant me”?

For all that I view myself as something constant, unchanging, the one who believed in God was a transient version of “me”, and the one who does not, is another version of “me”. They are not the same, constant, unchanging “me”, as I see it.

Can we put it that there IS a self but that it is a fleeting, imaginary thing, not an actual continuous, permanent entity? There is the self of this morning when “I was happy”. Then “I was lonely, isolated, unrelated” to people, ideas and things for an hour or so. Later I was “letting” my thoughts wander - some barely perceptible as they passed through, others piquing my interest and hanging around for a while. Then I had an argument and was angry. So there’s a multitude of “me’s” in a day, tied together into one solid image by means of memory, time.

How DO I “know” even intellectually that the observer IS the observed? Can the error be to think in terms of the permanency or continuity of the one (the “me”, the observer), and the fluidity of the other (loneliness, the observed)? But aren’t BOTH - the “I” and the observed - ever-changing? One minute there is greed, the next there is distraction, anger, then fear, then desire, then pleasure, then anticipation, affection, and so on. It is an ever-changing psychological landscape. Where is the static, unchanging “me” in this ever-changing landscape? It is only idea, time, image, memory, isn’t it?

The mind clings to the idea of a permanent me which is separate from this and that. When it is seen that both the observer and the observed are transient, there is no separate permanent “me” remaining, is there? What is action then if there is no actor?

Then too, what is this loneliness or greed (etc.) that “comes upon me”? Where does it come from? IS it “something” external that comes upon me? Or is it the result of an inner thought process, unconscious or conscious?

So, as I see it, both the observer AND the observed disappear when we look at it, both being put together by thought. We say that the observer is the observed. But it works both ways: a=b and b=a. The observer is the observed anger or loneliness, and the observed is the observer, isn’t it? Is there anger without the observer?

But clearly, the observed which disappears is not “everything” - neighbours, family, trees, mountains, cars, etc. Thought doesn’t put neighbours, trees and mountains together. The observed which disappears is the thing which the observer (thought) puts together - fear, anger, conflict, loneliness, and so on. Not "everything".

I do have an issue with K’s phrase, “never to come back”, though: “When you look at it, if you look at it as an observer looking in, then again the problem arises. But the fact is that loneliness is you so we have to look at it without the observer, as a whole. When you do that completely, loneliness disappears totally, never to come back.”

That to me is like saying that I will never be inattentive again. Personally, I can’t say that. I think this might have been a moment of inattention on K’s part. I think that he WAS inattentive at times. Or maybe there’s something I’m not understanding. I don’t know.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Mar 2018 #10
Thumb_stringio BTeulada II Portugal 18 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Daniel Paul. wrote:
I do not know if that matches what you were trying to bring or asking here..

Hi Dan, things are great in my part of the world :)

I guess what I was trying to say is that, to me, his whole explanation sounded a bit like, when asked by someone "how do I learn to ride a bicycle?", replying to them "by riding it". But I understand that to K these must have seemed impossible questions with impossibly obvious answers..

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Mar 2018 #11
Thumb_stringio BTeulada II Portugal 18 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Huguette . wrote:

1:

Huguette, thank you very much for an exceedingly well thought-out reply. You almost make it sound easy :)

What you say makes complete sense of course, but this "observer is the observed" has always been such a stumbling block for me, possibly because approching it from the perspective of logic and intellect is of course, hopeless, as the very nature of intellect is to intervene on reality - as something out there and different from it -and so it is entirely based on the actor/action perspective.

The only way I can somehow grasp this is through the explanation of the double slit experiment in quantum physics and the idea that the observer directly affects the experiment (i.e. the observed) by the mere fact of his/her observation.

As for K's explanation being "circular", maybe that was not a right choice of words but I certainly do feel - since we have brought quantum physics in - that his reasoning had this sort of "quantum leaps" where it did not go step by step: where K and any questioner start out on the same step, step 1, and suddenly the next thing I know, K is 10 steps ahead already and I sort of wonder «hey wait a minute, I did not notice him take the other 8 steps between 1 and 10 .. :(

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Mar 2018 #12
Thumb_stringio BTeulada II Portugal 18 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Huguette . wrote:
I do have an issue with K’s phrase, “never to come back”, though: “When you look at it, if you look at it as an observer looking in, then again the problem arises. But the fact is that loneliness is you so we have to look at it without the observer, as a whole. When you do that completely, loneliness disappears totally, never to come back.”

That to me is like saying that I will never be inattentive again. Personally, I can’t say that. I think this might have been a moment of inattention on K’s part. I think that he WAS inattentive at times. Or maybe there’s something I’m not understanding. I don’t know.

It makes sense though, because, when anyone reaches the point where they really look at something without the observer, this must mean that they have become one with everything there is, and at that point, loneliness, the me that is lonely, the self that is lonely, must necessarily have come to an end. And that, permanently. No?

This post was last updated by BTeulada II (account deleted) Sun, 11 Mar 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Mar 2018 #13
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 1230 posts in this forum Offline

BTeulada II wrote:
It makes sense though, because, when anyone reaches the point where they really look at something without the observer, this must mean that they have become one with everything there is, and at that point, loneliness, the me that is lonely, the self that is lonely, must necessarily have come to an end. And that, permanently. No?

If I have a 'glimpse', an insight into the meaning behind "you are the world", I see/feel the connection with everything. And it is a shock. But it doesn't 'transform', it was 'partial' and it becomes a remembrance that the self tries to recall but it can't. It is a memory...but regarding 'loneliness' even the memory of that 'seeing' changes it. I don't think it can ever have its previous intensity once it is seen that our separation from the 'world' is an illusion.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 12 Mar 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Mar 2018 #14
Thumb_stringio BTeulada II Portugal 18 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dan McDermott wrote:
If I have a 'glimpse', an insight into the meaning behind "you are the world", I see/feel the connection with everything. And it is a shock. But it doesn't 'transform', it was 'partial' and it becomes a remembrance that the self tries to recall but it can't. It is a memory...but regarding 'loneliness' even the memory of that 'seeing' changes it. I don't think it can ever have its previous intensity once it is seen that our separation from the 'world' is an illusion.

I am not sure what you mean by 'glimpse' or if for you are equating glimpse with insight.

If insight is temporary and becomes memory, obviously it was not insight.

I have the feeling that what you call 'glimpse' may be some sort of understanding still within the area of intellect and logic, thus, not insight.

Maybe seeing something like 'you are the world' even as a glimpse is better than nothing, that I don't know. It would seem to fall short of the mark to transform humanity or to free the mind of man, though.

It still remains within the realm of 'partial', 'temporary' and then it's back to darkness and mankind has had enough of that. So, no good.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Mar 2018 #15
Thumb_2018-01-20-120616 Daniel Paul. Ireland 89 posts in this forum Offline

BTeulada II wrote:
But, wait. The original question (in the video) was how to see (not intellectually) that the observer is the observed. K's answer: by looking at it completely, wholly, without the separation observer/observed ('not as an observer looking in').

BTeulada II wrote:
I guess what I was trying to say is that, to me, his whole explanation sounded a bit like, when asked by someone "how do I learn to ride a bicycle?", replying to them "by riding it". But I understand that to K these must have seemed impossible questions with impossibly obvious answers..

Hello v....well good to hear you are fine...

In fact you may have raised a fundamental matter here, the answer offered by k is quite simple as such coming from someone who actually does what he is talking about and would be in the known literature of all sort the only one mentioning that that way ; but for me thought is not capable to do that at all says my own experiment, same impossibility for my lawnmower to fly to the moon.

Impossible question with impossible answer you say, possibly ..

thought by nature is always the observer observing,that is its nature, that is its functioning , its set up functioning for me and I see that more than clearly..by the way this may bring a question like: what or who or which , has set up the thinking program that way.?..no need for any answer here of course.

If there is some truth in that, and for me this is a fact, then thought cannot look at it wholly without the separation observer/observed ...

the implications of that are huge ..

cheerio..;)

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Mar 2018 #16
Thumb_2018-01-20-120616 Daniel Paul. Ireland 89 posts in this forum Offline

then I must, well I chose to add this quote

Krishnamurti: Thought itself must deny itself. Thought itself sees what it is doing - right? - and therefore thought itself realizes that it has to come of itself to an end. There is no other factor than itself. Therefore when thought realizes that whatever it does, any movement that it makes, is disorder (we are taking that as an example), then there is silence. The nature of the change from disorder is silence.

... from You are the World | 2nd Public Talk, 1969 at Stanford University

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Mon, 12 Mar 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Mar 2018 #17
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3088 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Then too, what is this loneliness or greed (etc.) that “comes upon me”? Where does it come from? IS it “something” external that comes upon me? Or is it the result of an inner thought process, unconscious or conscious?

So, as I see it, both the observer AND the observed disappear when we look at it, both being put together by thought. We say that the observer is the observed. But it works both ways: a=b and b=a. The observer is the observed anger or loneliness, and the observed is the observer, isn’t it? Is there anger without the observer?

Good post Huguette. Very well expressed a=b and b=a....there is no b separate from a, nor any a separate from b. Of course understanding this intellectually has no meaning. It has to be observed in the moment in consciousness to have any significance.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 12 Mar 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Mar 2018 #18
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 1230 posts in this forum Offline

BTeulada II wrote:
It would seem to fall short of the mark to transform humanity or to free the mind of man, though.

You're probably right...but that is still on my 'bucket list'! :)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Mar 2018 #19
Thumb_2018-01-20-120616 Daniel Paul. Ireland 89 posts in this forum Offline

Daniel Paul. wrote:
Krishnamurti: Thought itself must deny itself. Thought itself sees what it is doing - right? - and therefore thought itself realizes that it has to come of itself to an end. There is no other factor than itself. Therefore when thought realizes that whatever it does, any movement that it makes, is disorder (we are taking that as an example), then there is silence. The nature of the change from disorder is silence.

... from You are the World | 2nd Public Talk, 1969 at Stanford University

And it seems to me that what is possibly-probably needed to be added to that is this: if disorder is not painful , then thought will never sees the mess it is creating and so will not make the needed right move(s) ..therefore pain is the vitally needed symptom-catalyst and is not at all an incident but a necessity ,in fact for me as a part of a process in which we all may or not go into somehow to be found by each one of us..same as: no one can eat for me*!

At its birth what will become pain is not really painful...as long as we do not listen the right way to it, it will increase..so does it in the outer too..of course !

But we may encounter the exact same process....for me no doubt about that..

Etc , etc etc..one of those lifetime subjects

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Mon, 12 Mar 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Mar 2018 #20
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 421 posts in this forum Offline

BTeulada II wrote at #11:
approching it from the perspective of logic and intellect is of course, hopeless, as the very nature of intellect is to intervene on reality.....

[...]

The only way I can somehow grasp this is through the explanation.....

Teulada,

IS it the nature of the intellect to intervene in reality? Or is it the nature of the intellect to make abstractions, to make mathematical and intellectual models or representations, and so on? Don't problems arise when ANY of these abstractions are taken AS reality? Just looking into it. Nothing is certain.

Also, DOES the explanation of the double slit experiment actually allow the mind (you) to “somehow grasp” that the observer is the observed? Or is it yet another movement of the intellect “from the perspective of logic and intellect”? The implication still being that “logic and the intellect” can somehow figure out how the observer and the observed are one. It seems to me that any understanding that comes as a result of this intellectual investigation is again merely intellectual understanding. Isn’t it?

It seems to me (which doesn’t mean that it’s so, of course) that observation of the actual arising of observer and observed is the only thing that can reveal the truth of the matter. Observation being unfettered by explanations and hypotheses. Awareness also observes any explanations which arise in the course of observation. But awareness does not adhere or cling to them - they fade in and fade out.

Doesn’t awareness reveal that observer and observed arise simultaneously, that they are part of a single movement or phenomenon which masquerades as 2 separate phenomena? This is not an explanation. It is an observation. I can’t be certain that this observation has not been infiltrated by thought. So I’m not saying IT IS SO.

All this is not to say that there is not a proper place for explanations and intellectualization. But does ANY explanation provided by the intellect have a proper place in the understanding of the observer and observed?

Added:

Regarding the quantum physics experiment you mentioned. It deals with an observer/observed duality which is not "put together" by thought, doesn't it? If "I observe" an orange, neither "I" nor "the orange" is a figment of my imagination. The physical human being and the orange exist physically. But we're talking about dualities which are entirely psychological - me and fear, me and loneliness, me and anger, and so on. Does quantum physics pertain here?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 13 Mar 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Mar 2018 #21
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3088 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Doesn’t awareness reveal that observer and observed arise simultaneously, that they are part of a single movement or phenomenon which masquerades as 2 separate phenomena?

Right. I see that 'I' am an integral part of the phenomenon of fear...of anger...as examples of 'the observed'. An integral part of the observed. It's very interesting to actually go into this in oneself!

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Mar 2018 #22
Thumb_stringio BTeulada II Portugal 18 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Huguette . wrote:
IS it the nature of the intellect to intervene in reality? Or is it the nature of the intellect to make abstractions, to make mathematical and intellectual models or representations, and so on?

But are these two things (intervene on reality / making abstractions etc) mutually exclusive? I would say intellect makes abstractions and intellectual models to then apply them to reality, thereby intervening on it.

Huguette . wrote:
Regarding the quantum physics experiment you mentioned. It deals with an observer/observed duality which is not "put together" by thought, doesn't it? If "I observe" an orange, neither "I" nor "the orange" is a figment of my imagination. The physical human being and the orange exist physically. But we're talking about dualities which are entirely psychological - me and fear, me and loneliness, me and anger, and so on. Does quantum physics pertain here?

I would say it does pertain, because it might in fact be the scientific representation of the same situation: if observing the behaviour of a particle affects that same behaviour, this could imply that the separation between these two (the observer on the one hand, and the particle, i.e. the observed on the other) may in fact exist to a much lesser degree than we take for granted; taking it a step further, it may well be that the duality observer/particle (observed) is as much a figment of our imagination as the duality "I"/anger-loneliness-fear etc.

Huguette . wrote:
It seems to me (which doesn’t mean that it’s so, of course) that observation of the actual arising of observer and observed is the only thing that can reveal the truth of the matter. Observation being unfettered by explanations and hypotheses. Awareness also observes any explanations which arise in the course of observation. But awareness does not adhere or cling to them - they fade in and fade out.

I would agree, yes.

Huguette . wrote:
Doesn’t awareness reveal that observer and observed arise simultaneously, that they are part of a single movement or phenomenon which masquerades as 2 separate phenomena? This is not an explanation. It is an observation.

I would certainly agree.

Huguette . wrote:
I can’t be certain that this observation has not been infiltrated by thought.

That could be the case too, yes. I found a video on Q&A with K a few weeks ago. The title, if I remember correctly, was something like, would observation of thought not end up being the continuation of thought? So, in your words, would observation of thought not eventually be infiltrated by thought. Unfortunately I did not get around to watch it and now I cannot seem to find it :(

I would say though that thought could only infiltrate half-hearted observation, no? I mean, assuming someone could be fully observant all the time, would that leave room for thought to infiltrate at all you think?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Mar 2018 #23
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 421 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
IS it the nature of the intellect to intervene in reality? Or is it the nature of the intellect to make abstractions, to make mathematical and intellectual models or representations, and so on?

BTeulada II wrote:
But are these two things (intervene on reality / making abstractions etc) mutually exclusive? I would say intellect makes abstractions and intellectual models to then apply them to reality, thereby intervening on it.

Teulada,

I‘m not saying that intervening on reality and making abstractions are mutually exclusive. I'm saying that I don't see intervening on reality as the “nature” of the intellect. Self is what intervenes on reality. Self IS the intervention of psychological conditioning on reality, isn't it? It is conditioning which fragments the mind into self and not-self, observer and observed, thinker and thought. As I see it, the intellect is not doomed to be bound by this perspective.

What I see as the nature of the intellect is the making of abstractions. Can there be such a thing as intellect without the making of abstractions? Every word, every image, every thought, every idea, belief, interpretation, memory, blueprint, flowchart, etc., is an abstraction, isn’t it? The abstraction is never the thing. As long as the mind understands that the word is not the thing, abstraction is not a problem, is it? If the nature and significance of abstractions is understood, the mind is not bound, enslaved or ruled by them, is it?

You said earlier (at #11) that by its very nature, the intellect intervenes on reality “as something out there and different from it-and so it is entirely based on the actor/action perspective”, and that therefore the intellect is a stumbling block to understanding the observer-observed duality. But if that IS your perspective (that the actor IS separate from the action), if you DO see the world as separate from “me”, what then makes you say that this is a distortion of reality? What makes you say that this is NOT reality, not the fact? Why do you call your own perspective erroneous?

If it is the nature of the intellect to intervene on reality - that means it CANNOT be otherwise, awareness notwithstanding. But it seems to me that it CAN be otherwise. Can't it? If I have been educated to be selfish, to view life from a self-centred perspective, can I change? Can someone who has been educated as a racist or a nationalist change?

Can't I observe my own perspective - self - as it arises and unfolds? Can't I observe what triggers my perspective, observe the relationship between my perspective, my actions and "the world", observe the relationship between the observer and the observed, and so on? Without repressing or denouncing any of it, without naming it as being an intervention or a distortion, but simply observing it all silently?.Isn't there a learning in that?

I don't know if this makes any sense.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Mar 2018 #24
Thumb_stringio BTeulada II Portugal 18 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Huguette . wrote:
Can't I observe my own perspective - self - as it arises and unfolds? Can't I observe what triggers my perspective, observe the relationship between my perspective, my actions and "the world", observe the relationship between the observer and the observed, and so on? Without repressing or denouncing any of it, without naming it as being an intervention or a distortion, but simply observing it all silently?.Isn't there a learning in that?

I don't know if this makes any sense.

Yes, of course it does.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Mar 2018 #25
Thumb_stringio richard head United States 332 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

BTeulada II wrote:
So now I am lost.

You say this, like it's a bad thing. :)

Without the comfort/security that logic/knowledge/information brings, the mind is lost and confused. Embrace it. The only way to figure it all out is to be in direct contact with it (Being lost).
If we seek the comfort of logic/Q&A/information we no longer have contact and therefore will be unable to act directly on the issue. We will simply discuss it forever.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Mar 2018 #26
Thumb_stringio BTeulada II Portugal 18 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

richard head wrote:
ou say this, like it's a bad thing. :)

Without the comfort/security that logic/knowledge/information brings, the mind is lost and confused. Embrace it. The only way to figure it all out is to be in direct contact with it (Being lost).
If we seek the comfort of logic/Q&A/information we no longer have contact and therefore will be unable to act directly on the issue. We will simply discuss it forever.

Ah ah, yes, maybe not a bad thing after all. :)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 26 posts
Page 1 of 1
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.)