You are what you think. Your thinking is you. If you're a shoddy thinker, you're a shoddy person. If you don't think you're shoddy, you are. The hallmark of a shoddy mind is that it rules out the possibility of its own shoddiness. It never takes a keen interest in its own activity. Shoddiness is the antithesis of keeness; a dull knife constantly in motion, making a mess of everything it applies itself to; a blunt instrument pretending to be a knife. When advised to sharpen up, it's shocked and offended because the idea that it might be dull is unthinkable. Having no edge, no ability to discern and discrminate, it can believe anything, and it can shamelessly justify its use of blunt force. When it bothers to look back on its trail of waste and ruin, it's as blind as it is looking forward.

The shoddy mind is the victim of its own careless, reckless, movement. It has been trained to act first and ask questions later. Better to react, the imprinted rationale is, than to do nothing at all...and the rationale goes unquestioned. This acceptance of authority, this disinclination to examine the foundation of its own modus operandi, is the essence of shoddiness. The fundamental rationale by which the shoddy mind operates is questionable, but the shoddy mind is incapable.

This post was last updated by nick carter Mon, 25 Oct 2010.

Give a man the microphone to the world and he comes up with this clap-trap! Talk about a 'shoddy mind'.

Nick C and Paul D have the run of Kinfonet at the moment - and just observe how the bar is lowered. Quite clearly - what K touched upon so eloquently throughout is lifetime has been re-interpreted into all the pontificating judgement that parades here as 'dialogue' in K's name. How very sad.

And don't worry Nick - this little black duck has no intention of returning to Kinfonet to interfere with your ravings. Carry on regardless.

Just passing by!

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
this little black duck has no intention of returning to Kinfonet

Please don't do such shoddy thing:)

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

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
How very sad.

Yes.

I don't know either !

nick carter wrote:
This acceptance of authority, this disinclination to examine the foundation of its own modus operandi, is the essence of shoddiness

Nick, I don't expect a formal answer to the following questions raised by your points...

Isn't the point of Kinfonet to address this element. Or are you just registering despondence, Sir?

Are you asking that one puts 'right questions' only and wondering about the capacity to do so ?

I see a paradox, here, since we are, supposedly, learning together.

Regards, Katy

I don't know either !

This post was last updated by Katy 7 (account deleted) Mon, 25 Oct 2010.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Give a man the microphone to the world and he comes up with this clap-trap! Talk about a 'shoddy mind'.
Nick C and Paul D have the run of Kinfonet at the moment - and just observe how the bar is lowered. Quite clearly - what K touched upon so eloquently throughout is lifetime has been re-interpreted into all the pontificating judgement that parades here as 'dialogue' in K's name. How very sad.

Thanks, Patricia, for providing an example of shoddiness. You express your distaste without saying anything interesting or informative about what it is you disapprove of and why. You're very good at getting on your high horse and condemning others but you're never able to make it clear just what it is that upsets you so much. I'd like very much to read some good criticism of what I write, but I won't expect it from you.

Katy 7 wrote:
nick carter wrote:
This acceptance of authority, this disinclination to examine the foundation of its own modus operandi, is the essence of shoddiness
Nick, I don't expect a formal answer to the following questions raised by your points...
Isn't the point of Kinfonet to address this element. Or are you just registering despondence, Sir?
Are you asking that one puts 'right questions' only and wondering about the capacity to do so ?
I see a paradox, here, since we are, supposedly, learning together.
Regards, Katy

No, Katy, I'm not "registering despondence". I'm stating the fact that an operating system is in effect that never questions its own movement because it's operating on the assumption that it is not fundamentally flawed. Or to put it another way, in its attempts to uncover the root cause of disorder, suffering, it never questions itself, but concerns itself instead with ideas such as "right questions", etc. When I say it doesn't have the capacity to question itself, I mean that its program doesn't allow for it.

This post was last updated by nick carter Mon, 25 Oct 2010.

Katy 7 wrote:
I see a paradox, here, since we are, supposedly, learning together.

This idea of "learning together" is a K-ism. Learning is what matters, not whether you're doing it with others. To hope or expect to "learn together" is foolish. Just learn.

nick carter wrote:
When I say it doesn't have the capacity to question itself, I mean that its program doesn't allow for it.

If I let myself acknowledge the stark truth in this observation, Nick, it creates utter despondency in me, Sir.
(It implies predetermination, in a sense, yet I appreciate that what you are saying is, perhaps, more subtle/complex).

I can see why Einstein is famous for saying that imagination is more important than intelligence. (I don't know in what context he said so but the idea certainly sells).

Are you saying that one only has the capacity to fool oneself into thinking it is questioning itself? This said are we sharing a collective delusory aim? (No answers expected)

Regards, Katy

I don't know either !

This post was last updated by Katy 7 (account deleted) Mon, 25 Oct 2010.

nick carter wrote:
This idea of "learning together" is a K-ism. Learning is what matters, not whether you're doing it with others. To hope or expect to "learn together" is foolish. Just learn.

Cheers, Nick. (emoticon implied)

I don't know either !

Katy 7 wrote:
Are you saying that one only has the capacity to fool oneself into thinking it is questioning itself? This said are we sharing a collective delusory aim? (No answers expected)

We're conditioned to practice self-deception. But if you can be aware of your conditioning, you needn't be your own victim.

nick carter wrote:
We're conditioned to practice self-deception. But if you can be aware of your conditioning, you needn't be your own victim.

For sure. Thanks, Katy

I don't know either !

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Nick C and Paul D have the run of Kinfonet at the moment - and just observe how the bar is lowered

Can't say I share your assessment, Patricia. On the contrary, I find the quality bar has been raised of late.

Emma T wrote:
I find the quality bar has been raised of late.

Well, Patricia probably raised it from the grave.

What are you waiting for?

Paul Davidson wrote:
Well, Patricia probably raised it from the grave.

Funny, Paul.

(Was going to reply with a smiley face, but didn't want to be labeled as just another insufferable american.)

Emma T wrote:
Can't say I share your assessment, Patricia. On the contrary, I find the quality bar has been raised of late.

Hello Emma,

How does a person measure 'quality' I wonder?

Regards, Katy

I don't know either !

This post was last updated by Katy 7 (account deleted) Mon, 25 Oct 2010.

Katy 7 wrote:
How does a person measure 'quality' I wonder?

Hi Katy,

Purely subjectively, without question. Whatever you personally find thought-provoking, I guess.

Though I still wonder: Is there not only one truth? And if so, can it have myriad interpretations?

Emma T wrote:
Though I still wonder: Is there not only one truth? And if so, can it have myriad interpretations?

Goodness, me, Emma ! This is even more difficult a question to answer than the one I just asked you...

It seems that it is, possibly, a question, too, of whether I, you or we can recognise bias(es) or not as products of our particular version of conditioning?

(Sorry to answer your question with yet another one. No answer being sought)

Regards, Katy

I don't know either !

This post was last updated by Katy 7 (account deleted) Mon, 25 Oct 2010.

nick carter wrote:
This idea of "learning together" is a K-ism.

after being with fact , we make it an idea. What a shoddy mind!
gb

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

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Tue, 26 Oct 2010.

ganesan balachandran wrote:
after being with fact , we make it an idea. What a shoddy mind! gb

Well, K said that life is to be lived, not ideated or criticised. So surely the compulsive criticism of 'ideas' is two steps away from life. If you don't like an idea, why constantly carp about it, just leave it alone, I think.

Nick wants to learn on his own, so what is he doing here, I ask?

What are you waiting for?

Paul Davidson wrote:
Nick wants to learn on his own, so what is he doing here, I ask?

I learn from mistakes...my own, the mistakes of others, and yours especially, Paul. Keep em' comin'!

nick carter wrote:
This idea of "learning together" is a K-ism

Is it a K-ism or fact?-because otherwise it is receiving instructions-not learning!

nick carter wrote:
I learn from mistakes...my own, the mistakes of others, and yours especially, Paul. Keep em' comin'!

Any learning that comes from the accumulation of your own mistakes is only one miustake learning from another, the constant effort to become better. Eventually when you have accumulated enough mistakes you think you will understand something. That is total illusion.

To learn from the mistakes of others is to cultivate judgement of others and opposition, which is not true criticism but reaction against what you do not like and avoidance at looking at the whole issue of WHY you do not like something, which is not about the other person but about yourself and begins with the ability to self-doubt. Doubting the other, on its own, is a variety of cynicism.

What are you waiting for?

Paul Davidson wrote:
Any learning that comes from the accumulation of your own mistakes is only one miustake learning from another, the constant effort to become better. Eventually when you have accumulated enough mistakes you think you will understand something. That is total illusion.

Well, actually, what you've said so far is total crap, but do go on...

"To learn from the mistakes of others is to cultivate judgement of others and opposition, which is not true criticism but reaction against what you do not like and avoidance at looking at the whole issue of WHY you do not like something, which is not about the other person but about yourself and begins with the ability to self-doubt. Doubting the other, on its own, is a variety of cynicism."

I don't know how you come up with this stuff, but I won't waste my time trying to disabuse you of your misapprehensions. A mistake is a mistake, regardless of whose. To understand the nature and structure of the mistake is to learn something.

I could explain to you why everything you've said here is sadly mistaken but you wouldn't understand because you don't realize how edifying and illuminating a mistake can be; you don't know how to learn from mistakes.

This post was last updated by nick carter Thu, 28 Oct 2010.

Does this go beyond the limitations of the word to anyone? i have been in an environment where the limitations of knowledge has not been questioned having left the earthquake zone for a rest from them and was questioning this when i came apon this in Talks in the Oak Grove , Ojai 1932

"The majority of people have such strange ideas about Truth, and a life which is spiritual, that it is very difficult to explain to them what I consider to be Truth. They believe that through the accumulation of experience, which involves time, they will gradually realize that which is the ultimate, the eternal.

Now, to me it is quite the contrary. The present holds all of time, and the understanding of a single experience of the immediate in its fulness gives you the realization of Truth. The idea of progress implies accumulation, expanding, a movement ever towards a purpose or an end. But the significance of an experience cannot be understood through this idea of progess or time. It can be understood only in the present, which is ever the eternal. The full meaning of an experience in the immediate gives you the immensity of understanding."

Averil

averil harrison wrote:
"The majority of people have such strange ideas about Truth, and a life which is spiritual, that it is very difficult to explain to them what I consider to be Truth. They believe that through the accumulation of experience, which involves time, they will gradually realize that which is the ultimate, the eternal.

What one can learn from a mistake has nothing to do with "the ultimate, the eternal", but that doesn't mean one can't learn from mistakes.

One can always find a K scripture that seems to obviate the obvious.