Are anybody familiar with Chomsky's work ?
I'm currently asking myself what is the importance of mass media in the current situation, say the total lack of wisdom in the western world, europe and USA. This lack of wisdom is a good opportunity for powerfull people to develop even more their ego but it not the point of the discussion.
I wrote to Mr Chomsky to ask him if he's familiar with K's work. He kindly answer my email.

I will never fit this ugly world but I feel less and less bad for that

This post was last updated by Francois Bresson Tue, 11 Jan 2011.

Francois,

The name is familiar (Chomsky), but I've never read any of his writing.

What you are saying is important. Without propagandizing, how can what Krishnamurti had to say be brought forward into the general public? To do so will take the attention of men like Chomsky, prominent neuroscientists and psychologists, and teachers.

Good work, writing to Mr. Chomsky. You say he answered your e-mail. Is his answer something that could be posted here?

max

Yes I am familiar with his work an attended many of his lectures at MIT in Boston. It would be great if Chomsky read some K, because no one could be more further apart in many aspects especially in regards to the solutions for the mess we are in.

Life is relationship

Eve Goodmon wrote:
no one could be more further apart in many aspects especially in regards to the solutions for the mess we are in

I precisely got the same idea.
Anybody interested in reading my correspondance can send me a private message.

You get me wrong, Max.

When I talk about propaganda, I'm talking about people working for media, WTO or banks, economist, politics, business man... All these people promote in their way neoliberalism.
Propaganda is a subtil way of twisting the truth to manufacture consent from the mass in a democraty.
One exemple : In France, you may have heard about huge protests against a new retirement law increasing the retirement age(october 2010). The media continuously promote how the striking bother transportation users, create mess. Almost everyday, the media report that the people action is getting weaker and weaker. It actually lasted many weeks and millions of people walk on the street.
This law is trully unfair for many reasons (that I will not develop here) but media try to present it as a reasonable necessity. Few economist promote alternative way to this law, but their voice almost found no echo in the classical media.

K's work is the opposite of propaganda. Like Chomsky, he wants to explain to the mass what he understood because he think that will help in some way.

On that context, I do believe K's mission is now getting even harder.

I will never fit this ugly world but I feel less and less bad for that

This post was last updated by Francois Bresson Fri, 14 Jan 2011.

hello françois,

I've been interested into Chomsky's work regarding linguistics (though i difficutly read books because of lack of concentration -quite young but damaged brain), and i wrote him about it some years ago, and he also kindly answered to me. It was some questions about language, thought and the brain, and their relations; and what appeared is the fact that science has very little knowledge about all this, that science is very limited in that field, because all is so intricated and complex, and also all approaches are conditioned, by an idea, a theory, or a methodology.

I too think that Krishnamurti's message is not at all propaganda, but also that it is not destinated neither for the mass nor for some kind of elite, but only for the ones who came to it, by chance or not, and found a deep and sincere interest to it because it is so.

Then, among those who are enough serious, a different movement may take place, which is not related to anything known, and which is not into the field of the tradition, or of the society (politics, religions and so on). But stating that, i'm not asserting anything nor i'm willing to interpret K's message. It is just how i see it and have integrated it into my life, and i'm no authority and no example, as each one is unique. Also, i may say that personally it has not been easy to overcome all that happens in my life even after gathering some insights thanks to K's reading. And i'm still learning, everyday, through observation and listening, because my brain is quite 'addicted' to that by now, it needs some kind of quietness out of all the propagandas and informations coming from the society. It is for me an essential point of the teaching.

But also, if i may notice, one sees that among people who are interested into K's message, there are a lot of persons who come from various religions, philosophies or spiritualities, with a lot of symbolic luggages and knowledge, and that they try to integrate K's message into their own knowledge, and mixing all this for building
their own opinion or authority (and i may have done that myself to a certain extent by the past). I think it is a wrong approach to do that, because it is still in the field of thought and knowledge, as an accumulative process, which is quite different from the "emptying of the mind" which is the purpose of K's message.

aurelien B wrote:
lot of persons who come from various religions, philosophies or spiritualities, with a lot of symbolic luggages and knowledge, and that they try to integrate K's message into their own knowledge, and mixing all this for building their own opinion or authority (and i may have done that myself to a certain extent by the past).

Hi dear,

It is a sexual union between "Siva" and "Shakti" that makes one experience as "bliss"

The above is a creation of the self from a text. No mixing of "K"s message and no intention of "authority".

Regards
Sunyata

This post was last updated by sunyata sunyata Wed, 19 Jan 2011.

sunyata sunyata wrote:
It is a sexual union between "Siva" and "Shakti" that makes one experience as "bliss"

spiritual union of the observer and observed...
gb

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

aurelien B wrote:
I've been interested into Chomsky's work regarding linguistics (though i difficutly read books because of lack of concentration -quite young but damaged brain

You can watch the french spoken DVD "Chomsky et Compagnie".
You can listen Daniel Mermet on the radio (France Inter 15h00-16h00 or http://www.la-bas.org).
You will understand how propaganda actually works very well in our societies (France, western europe, USA, and so on). You will see how all this business is another source of pain for almost everybody.
You can send me e-mails (in french) if you want more informations.

I don't think you can only focus on your own troubles (I believe K also didn't believe it), you have to spent some energy to understand the world.
I also believe that you cannot remove the old, you can only put something new, better and bigger.

I will never fit this ugly world but I feel less and less bad for that

That the external society is utterly corrupt and built upon propagandas is very obvious, and i'm not, personally, going to pass one hour to listen to someone speaking about that. I think that political action is too much conditioned for having any value at all. It is the big ideological distraction of our societies which is perpetually going on, and it is not serious at all, in the true sense of this term, which is, in the sense of finding out what reality is. People who are interested into political action or political understanding (the "out there") are generally not aware or not interested at all into the "in there", or if they do so, it is according to some kind of experts, psychologists, scientists, ideas, philosophies or so. I don't think the world need better and bigger democraties, better and bigger dictatorships, better and bigger churches or better and bigger football stadiums and so on. But the world needs people who understand themselves, not intellectually or partially, but totally, by being free of the images that they and the society have built inwardly psychologically and which create the society as it is.

This post was last updated by aurelien B (account deleted) Wed, 19 Jan 2011.

I read Chomsky many years back, both his political and linguistic theories. He is a dry man with a heap of inner bitterness, safe in academia to thrust a pointed finger out at the powers to be. An odd person with little charm. I was a co-speaker with him at a meeting in Boston in 2001, speaking about Cuba.

Chomsky's theories on language acquisition (the so-called 'language acquisition device') were highly speculative and now outdated in linguistic circles. His political work is his emotional outlet and it is 99% criticism and 1% something else I do not know. He expresses little feeling for the real situation of humankind and rails against 'power' as if the so-called 'mass' were not responsible for the leaders they create.

If one were to want a rough comparison:

Where K was serene and passionate, Chomsky is awkward and emotional. There is no relationship between the two.

With regard to the media, the so-called New Mandarins are the same as ever, but more sophisticated. Propaganda has never changed or developed much: a lie is ever as much a lie and no more so. The public gets what the public wants.

What are you waiting for?

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Fri, 11 Feb 2011.

Paul Davidson wrote:
I was a co-speaker with him at a meeting in Boston in 2001, speaking about Cuba.

And what did you have to say about Cuba?

Ten years ago I was an activist, very much in support of Cuba. I thought one could 'make' a revolution. I was attracted by Che's ideas of making a new man, that the human being must be transformed, not just the economic and political structures. But I was caught in the notion that the human being will transform according to ideas and theories of dialectical materialism, that the ego will give way to the common good once class and other social divisions are done with.

On that platform in a huge old church in Boston I was spokesperson of an organisation called Pastors for Peace, who organised aid caravans to Cuba in defiance of the US blocade. Chomsky was the guest speaker. Chomsky, while denegrating the blocade and US foreign policy over 150 years, the Monroe Doctrine etc etc, regarded the Castro regime as disgusting and dictatorial. He has never visited the island however.

What are you waiting for?

Paul Davidson wrote:
But I was caught in the notion that the human being will transform according to ideas and theories of dialectical materialism, that the ego will give way to the common good once class and other social divisions are done with.

You seem to imply that you were once "young and foolish" and now no longer has that notion. At any rate, you did acquire some knowledge of revolution. Did the people in Tahrir Square "make" a revolution in Egypt?

Chomsky, while denegrating the blocade and US foreign policy over 150 years, the Monroe Doctrine etc etc, regarded the Castro regime as disgusting and dictatorial. He has never visited the island however.

Ok, Chomsky is a flake. What about Krishnamurti's idea of making a new man?

No Ayar, I was not young, I was old. I am younger now, thank you. I would not use the term foolish, I was naive about certain things. But I still have the perception of the need for change. It is revolution by other means. Is that foolish? The problem I think is to understand one's motivations at their deepest levels, not to change them. At least, in understanding depth one naturally dispensed with superficiality.

There has been no 'revolution' in Egypt. The tide goes in and out. Sometimes it hits a rock. Sometimes it erodes a cliff face. But the tide has its own rhythm, determined by the moon. If humanity can free itself from the moon, that would be a revolution.

Did Krishnamurti have an idea of making a new man, a 'golom' perhaps? Man does not exist. S/he will arise when s/he completes him/herself. Evolution, as far as this species is concerned, will be self-completing or the species will die in the process. It is up to each of us. Nietzsche's superman was a dream but now god is dead, we have to face reality, within ourselves.

What are you waiting for?

Paul Davidson wrote:
...we have to face reality, within ourselves.

Is this reality the same for all mankind who collectively make it real? At the personal level, we each face a different situation. What do you mean by "it is up to each of us"? What is this imperative?

What do you mean by "man does not exist"?

Paul Davidson wrote:
Man does not exist. S/he will arise when s/he completes him/herself. Evolution, as far as this species is concerned, will be self-completing or the species will die in the process. It is up to each of us. Nietzsche's superman was a dream but now god is dead, we have to face reality, within ourselves.

Oh, how we've missed your pontificatory oration! Your highfalutin speeches! Welcome back, Paul.

ayar hari wrote:
Is this reality the same for all mankind who collectively make it real?

Reality must surely include everything and include both the individual and collective doings of humankind. Certainly, given the unique pattern of conditioning pertaining to each separate human we see reality differently, partially and in fragmentary form. Everyone has their own take on it. Each experiences a certain unique shift of the collective kaleidoscope.

ayar hari wrote:
What do you mean by "it is up to each of us"? What is this imperative?

I mean that there is no collective revolution, no species' response to its predicament, no mass action of radical change. The so-called mass is collective consciousness at its lowest level, whether that 'mass' may be on the streets of Cairo or in the hubub of Wall Street. Mass operates at the lowest common denominator and therefore at the most automatic level.

But at the level of the individual, change is possible. There is no imperitive. Everyday life does not lead us to any end by and of itself. To suggest an 'imperitive' is to suggest an end and a purpose for humanity, the belief in which is fantasy.

ayar hari wrote:
What do you mean by "man does not exist"?

Every other species evolved into a completed form by virtue of natural laws, but man. We have entered a new type of evolutionary process with a self-reflective organ called the triurnal brain. We are responsible to develop its use and thus become whole, integrated beings. As long as we are not integrated we are not yet a completed species, we are not yet men and women. We are responsible for our own evolution and yet all that we have evolved in two million years is confusion and suffering. Man, as such, is yet to come into the fullness of himself as a species, he is yet to be.

Maybe when the first creatures evolved with emotional responsiveness it took millions of years for this new element to be properly integrated. One could refer to chaos theory and call it a phase-transition stage. We are an experiment in progress. We may fail.

What are you waiting for?

Paul Davidson wrote:Certainly, given the unique pattern of conditioning pertaining to each separate human we see reality differently, partially and in fragmentary form. Everyone has their own take on it.

Each may have a different opinion colored by conditioning but what about objective reality? If you and I stand side by side and look up at the moon, would your take on it be the same or different? We obviously have the same take on the English alphabet judging from the way you are using it to write to me.

I mean that there is no collective revolution, no species' response to its predicament, no mass action of radical change. The so-called mass is collective consciousness at its lowest level, whether that 'mass' may be on the streets of Cairo or in the hubub of Wall Street. Mass operates at the lowest common denominator and therefore at the most automatic level.

But at the level of the individual, change is possible. There is no imperitive. Everyday life does not lead us to any end by and of itself. To suggest an 'imperitive' is to suggest an end and a purpose for humanity, the belief in which is fantasy.

So, by your reckoning, radical change is only possible at the individual level but not at the collective level. How does this jive with what K said: The self is a complete illusion.

Every other species evolved into a completed form by virtue of natural laws, but man. We have entered a new type of evolutionary process with a self-reflective organ called the triurnal brain.

Are you talking about psychological transformation when you referred to "a new type of evolutionary process"?

Paul Davidson wrote:
I read Chomsky many years back, both his political and linguistic theories. He is a dry man with a heap of inner bitterness, safe in academia to thrust a pointed finger out at the powers to be. An odd person with little charm. I was a co-speaker with him at a meeting in Boston in 2001, speaking about Cuba.

It seems that I triggered a lot of anger, can you spent it in another place ?

I will never fit this ugly world but I feel less and less bad for that

Paul Davidson wrote:
If one were to want a rough comparison:

Dear Paul,

I don't want your rough comparisons and your biterness about past conflicts.
Who want to compare K with Chomsky, you don't think it is just silly!
I don't think you can feel anything about that, but the way you show, anything useful you can say would be covered by the wall of agressity you put around yourself. In this situation, who want to listen to your understanding about K, you just show you understand nothing at all...
I'm not better than you, but at least I pretend nothing, I'm still with my ego.

I will never fit this ugly world but I feel less and less bad for that

Francois Bresson wrote:
It seems that I triggered a lot of anger, can you spent it in another place ?

Well, perhaps the lady assumes too much here. No, Francois, I expressed no anger here. I was giving an impression of the man as I knew him, his ideas, his voice, his physical posture. Personally I had no relation with him and feel little or nothing about him.

What are you waiting for?

Francois Bresson wrote:
I don't want your rough comparisons and your biterness about past conflicts. Who want to compare K with Chomsky, you don't think it is just silly! I don't think you can feel anything about that, but the way you show, anything useful you can say would be covered by the wall of agressity you put around yourself.

You see how easy it is to build images from words and fall into assumptions from scant clues, read wrongly? There were no past conflicts here. We were most amicable. There is no bitterness. Neither do I feel any bitterness or regret about my past political life. Probably I was no better or worse than Chomsky.

Francois Bresson wrote:
K's work is the opposite of propaganda. Like Chomsky, he wants to explain to the mass what he understood because he think that will help in some way.

Francois, you ask 'who would comapre K with Chomsky, yet you compared K to Chomsky when you said he was like Chomsky. I compared K to Chomsky to say he wasn't.

Frankly it is entirely wrong to say K wanted to to explain to the 'mass' to 'help in some way'. It is, I think, a wrong estimation of K that leads you to a wrong comparison with C.

Francois Bresson wrote:
anything useful you can say would be covered by the wall of agressity you put around yourself.

I apologise if I have offended you, it was not my intention. There was no aggression in my voice. Who is there to aggress against?

What are you waiting for?

ayar hari wrote:
If you and I stand side by side and look up at the moon, would your take on it be the same or different? We obviously have the same take on the English alphabet

Yes, this is it. We use the same language but thought divides us. We look together at the moon and you say, "How beautiful" and I say . . .

The point is that the same event is always taken differently because it is seen from different backgrounds.

ayar hari wrote:
So, by your reckoning, radical change is only possible at the individual level but not at the collective level. How does this jive with what K said: The self is a complete illusion.

Yes, but we live from that illusion and it is a self-perpetuating illusion. No outside influence will break us from it. Discernment of the real from the illusionary has to be done here, now. I cannot await a collective response. I have to begin for myself. I have to see the arising of illusion within me. I cannot see it in the other.

ayar hari wrote:
Are you talking about psychological transformation when you referred to "a new type of evolutionary process"?

The pattern that we have been living, psychologically, has to be totally destroyed, including the whole psychological structure. Only then will this fragmentary existance end and only then will the integrated being emerge. My feeling is that this happened to K. And I am adding that this also is the completion of the evolutionary process, as far as this species is concerned.

What are you waiting for?

Paul Davidson wrote:
Well, perhaps the lady assumes too much here. No, Francois, I expressed no anger here.

The lady...
No anger...
You cannot see yourself at all...

Waste of time

I will never fit this ugly world but I feel less and less bad for that

Francois Bresson wrote:
The lady... No anger... You cannot see yourself at all...

Sorry Francois. I did not mean to upset you again. The line, "Perhaps the lady assumes too much" paradies the much quoted line in Shakespeare's Hamlet, which is as follows:

HAMLET:
Madam, how like you this play?(220)

QUEEN:
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

I was suggesting that when you make the assumption that I must be writing in a fit of anger you might also look back into yourself and examine the emotional stance you are responding from.

When 'the lady' protested 'too much' it was because her protest hid her real inner state.

When you ask me to spend my anger in another place and when you make declarations such as 'waste of time' and 'you cannot see yourself at all' it shows that your you have adopted an emotional stance. When you accuse me of aggression, declare my comments a waste of time and ask me to go elsewhere, this is all emotional reaction.

As I say, I am sorry to have caused you upset but you must really look to see if you also hold some responsibility for your own emotions. Certainly I have not said anything personal against you and have shown no aggression.

As for my opinion of Mr Chomsky, it still stands.

What are you waiting for?

Paul Davidson wrote:
The pattern that we have been living, psychologically, has to be totally destroyed, including the whole psychological structure. Only then will this fragmentary existance end and only then will the integrated being emerge. My feeling is that this happened to K. And I am adding that this also is the completion of the evolutionary process, as far as this species is concerned.

What happened to K? As a human being he was completely evolved? How come he never made that claim in his talks and writings?

ayar hari wrote:
What happened to K? As a human being he was completely evolved? How come he never made that claim in his talks and writings?

'Evolved' in the sense that he had integrated his mind, yes. He said so in many ways, many times. This integration transforms a fragmented soul into a whole being. He called it 'mutation in one's own lifetime.'

Sometimes he was asked if he had done what he talked about and he said, 'of course I have, otherwise I would not talk of it.' In his early writings, under pressure from persistent questions he affirmed it directly but later he considered it unwise and sacrilege to talk of it. He simply replied, 'What does it matter to you whether I say I am or I am not?'

But you are right, he never used the phrase, 'completely evolved.' That is my own deduction from the content of what he said. But he said that man, over two million years, had not evolved. To evolve would mean a radical transformation, which is the step he proposed. I think it is clear.

My point is that nature has brought us 99% of the way and that we have to conscously take the final step to our own completion and that K somehow managed it. I am certain he cannot have been the only one but that, in our epoch, he may have been. But before him, Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, these are the few names passed down to us and they changed their worlds.

One wonders what K's lasting legacy will be or whether humans have become to thick-skinned to care any more. We have invented the self-destruct button and are charmed with the new toy, a morbid fascination with the conditions of our own demise. So be it!

What are you waiting for?

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Mon, 14 Feb 2011.

Apols to Francois, I forgot that without a final 'e' the name implies a male entity. Hence the 'lady' quote caused some unnecessary friction. However I still think he protests too much.

What are you waiting for?

ayar hari wrote:
How come he never made that claim in his talks and writings?

In the ending of time discussion with Bohm, he introduces a character called X who is that and why is that?
gb

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

ganesan balachandran wrote:
In the ending of time discussion with Bohm, he introduces a character called X who is that and why is that?

Yes he does that.And even more directly he says:( note down the paragraphs under bold )

DB: You mean that without the division then the other is there - to be perceived?

K: Not to be perceived, but it is there.

DB: But then how does one come to be aware that it is there?

K: I don't think one becomes aware of it.

DB: Then what leads you to say it?

K: Would you say it is? Not, I perceive it, or it is perceived.

DB: Yes. It is.

K: It is.

DB: You could almost say that it is saying it. In some sense, you seem to be suggesting that it is what is saying.

K: Yes. I didn't want to put it - I am glad you put it like that! Where are we now?

This post was last updated by Ravi Seth Mon, 14 Feb 2011.