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

Observations


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 158 in total
Sun, 18 Sep 2011 #61
Thumb_avatar Dhanan Rao India 75 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
This is our knowledge, and there would seem to be nothing wrong with accumulating knowledge, in any amount.

Accumulation of Knowledge weighs down/burdens the mind. makes it inflexible to what is. Depending on intelligence makes one to only remember exactly what is required to live smoothly without conflict.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Sep 2011 #62
Thumb_avatar Dhanan Rao India 75 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Distance is a gap, an interval, and time is a measure of intervals. Space is an entirely different matter. Space has no boundaries or gaps.

Wonder what is the difference. Space is synonymous to distance. Where there is space there is distance. When one is beyond causation(i.e. space, time) distance has no meaning.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Sep 2011 #63
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Would there be space at all, if there were nothing in it?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Sep 2011 #64
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5797 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
It's how we use knowledge that matters. It would seem that "wisdom" is intelligence acting on knowledge

First I want to say that I am not interested in analizing anything. That becomes a word game and reasoning and reasoning alone is not seeing. And not everyone agrees on the definition of any given word which brings disorder to any discussion. I will ask you this: Intelligence acts on knowledge but does knowledge act on intelligence? To me it seems clear that knowledge is limited because it is dependent on thought and does not act on intelligence which is not dependent on thought. If so then wisdom, which is intelligence, is not acted on by knowledge. So knowledge is not wisdom. Knowledge distorts reality. Reality is defined as everthing that is thought. This definition of reality is from LIMITS OF THOUGHT which is a record of dialogues between Dr. Bohm and K. Is wisdom a distortion of reality, which is thought, or does wisdom bring order to reality? It seems apparent that wisdom brings order.

Sir, I would also refer you to Mr Dhanan Rao's excellent post 161 which is concise and maybe clearer than my post. Thanks for your question.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sun, 18 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Sep 2011 #65
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5797 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
Would there be space at all, if there were nothing in it?

But this is what space is; nothing, as in space between two thoughts and other examples I will leave to the reader.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Sep 2011 #66
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
Would there be space at all, if there were nothing in it?

This strikes at the heart of the matter. If there were nothing to define space, would there be space? How would we know?

Distance can be defined as the interval between two or more points. But what happens if there are no points available for measurement? Very simply, there isn't any distance.

But is there a space that does not depend on points and the intervals between points, and so it cannot be defined as "distance"?

I would say we cannot conceive of this space, just as we cannot conceive of the timelessness in the present moment. They may both be the same thing.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Sep 2011 #67
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Jack,

You wrote, ". . . it seems clear that knowledge is limited because it is dependent on thought . . . "

I see thought as the "I" entangled with remembered fact. We place into memory a bare, unvarnished fact and when we recall the fact we put our "spin" on it. For me, that is thought.

It would seem that simply seeing facts and recording them in memory is not an action tainted with the "I." The seeing and recording of fact is accumulated as knowledge. I don't see this accumulation of fact (our store of knowledge) as dependent on thought. It's what we do with knowledge that becomes thought.

Knowledge is always limited because it is memory, the past, and never the present situation or condition. Also, it is almost impossible to have total knowledge of any subject.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Sep 2011 #68
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Dhanan Rao wrote:
Space is synonymous to distance.

I don't see them as synonymous, since distance implies points from which to begin a measurement. On the other hand, space has no points, no boundaries, and cannot be measured.

Time is a measurement of distance, but time cannot be applied to space since space has no "distance" to be measured.

I had a few more words on this in post #66.

Dhanan Rao wrote:
Depending on intelligence makes one to only remember exactly what is required to live smoothly without conflict.

What you're getting at is true: Intelligence is necessary. However, I doubt that one can remember his way to living without conflict.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Sep 2011 #69
Thumb_avatar Dhanan Rao India 75 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
On the other hand, space has no points, no boundaries, and cannot be measured.

The general understanding of the definition of space is that spatial domain introduces points, boundary and consequently TIME comes into being. Both space and time are inseparable. In fact spatial domain comes into being because there seem to be TWO SEPARATE objects. So feeling of 'SEPARATION' creates the domain of SPACE and TIME. If I do not feel separate from you we are already beyond space and time and in the domain of LOVE.

max greene wrote:
However, I doubt that one can remember his way to living without conflict.

No. I meant intelligence will make you to remember/accumulate just the right kind and amount/depth of knowledge needed for conflict free existence. Any accumulation of knowledge not involving intelligence will perforce cause conflict. I think indiscriminate accumulation of knowledge is an act of SELF.

This post was last updated by Dhanan Rao Mon, 19 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Sep 2011 #70
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Intelligence is necessary.

May i know in what sense you are using the word intelligence.
gb

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

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Mon, 19 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Sep 2011 #71
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

Dhanan Rao wrote:
Depending on intelligence makes one to only remember exactly what is required to live smoothly without conflict.

ganesan balachandran wrote:
May i know in what sense you are using the word intelligence.
gb

is not intelligence what 'Is'?

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

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Mon, 19 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Sep 2011 #72
Thumb_295902_10150361346929121_667049120_8087939_521721644_n Angel Miolan Dominican Republic 179 posts in this forum Offline

Intelligence means for me something that resists any definition. The kind of “intelligence” we know is the product of thought deliberations and conclusions. The one psychologist’s intent to measure in special tests. But true intelligence is the quality of mind related to direct perception of what it is, without the intervention of thought. In that condition, intelligence is pure perception and discernment beyond time and duality. One can try to capture in words that glance of intelligence but is impossible. Intelligence comes to visit us when we discard futility. Regards, Angel.

lobo de la estepa

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Sep 2011 #73
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

ganesan balachandran wrote:
May i know in what sense you are using the word intelligence. . . . is not intelligence what 'Is'? . . .

Yes, I would say, intelligence is exactly that -- what is. Only "what is" is the truth because "what is" is before the distortions of the past creep in and before the fantasies of an imagined future obscure it. Truth (intelligence) is to be found only in the present moment.

And just "what is" is the present moment? The present moment is timeless and cannot be measured, yet we know it is a reality because action must and can only take place in the present. Intelligence is the swiftness of action in the timeless present moment.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Mon, 19 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Sep 2011 #74
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Dhanan Rao wrote:
The general understanding of the definition of space is that spatial domain introduces points, boundary and consequently TIME comes into being. Both space and time are inseparable.

Yes, points and boundaries may be introduced into space, but I would say that the introduction of something into space does not change space itself. For example, a house occupies space, but the house merely "occupies" space, it in no way modifies or affects space itself. What the house does do is to introduce points and boundaries. These points and boundaries are subject to measurement -- distance between points, distance from one side (boundary) to the other. And so time, which is a measurement of distance, is also introduced.

Space itself in the above illustration remains totally unchanged, unaffected in any way. Time has no applicability to that which has no points or boundaries. Space itself, without points and boundaries, is outside of time and distance. Space is measureless and therefore timeless. I would say that a correct terminology is space/present and distance/time.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Mon, 19 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Sep 2011 #75
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

It seems to me that this whole question of space is intangable and not open to reason. I am not saying that it is not 'reasonable' but that we do not have sufficient grasp of fact, at any level, for reason to be able to work with.

We can say certain things about space, according to the particular aspect of the question we are looking at, as contributers have done above, but I am sure we do not have an overall picture, even of the correct questions to ask. We can look at it in particular and therefore partial ways, according to the focus of our interest.

It seems to me that this is all we can rationally do.Therefore that which is most important is to be sure about and to state what the intention of any concrete enquiry may be and to ascertain thereby, whether or not progress of such an enquiry can be usefully made.

The more deeply I think about space, the question taken as a whole, the more I believe it cannot be tackled, let alone defined, as a whole.

For example, the question occurs, how is it to be defined, the space WITHIN any object? It has been mentioned that there is space between objects and that objects exist within space, but it is equally true that space is defined as that within and between any whole system, whether that system be a world or an atom. The space within any atom is far 'greater'that the space occupied by the sub-atomic masses constituting of that atom. Matter itself is only identified to us by its appearance to us, to our senses and to our consciousness.

Please, here I am not addressing space itself, either from any knowledge base about it or from some sort of metaphysical perspective. I feel what I am doing is questioning the fact of how we approach the question and with what we approach it, and I am questioning our competance to say much beyond the practical and applicable, which is itself very little.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Sep 2011 #76
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

I have also wondered for some year show gravity is related to all this. It is the one force that physicists cannot 'yet' enfold in a unitary theory of forces. Gravity, distance, time, space and movement are some sort of crazy ballet we contend with to make sense of. Or . . . we could simply leave them alone.

I have talked with physicists about this. They cannot make head or tail of my concern. I do not know if I am more crazy than them or less so. (I am not suggesting this is put to a vote here on Kinfonet!)

"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, 19 Sep 2011 #77
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Paul,

You wrote, "The more deeply I think about space, the question taken as a whole, the more I believe it cannot be tackled, let alone defined, as a whole.

This is my view also. All I would say that CAN be said about space is that it appears to be without boundary and therefore cannot be measured or "timed." Would you go this far?

I would refer to the timelessness of the present moment, a subject we've talked about before. Suspiciously, space and timelessness seem to go together, and both are beyond real comprehension.

The question of distance/time and space/present probably should not be forgotten about. Put aside perhaps, not made an object of search and struggle perhaps, but surely not forgotten about.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Sep 2011 #78
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
This is my view also. All I would say that CAN be said about space is that it appears to be without boundary and therefore cannot be measured or "timed." Would you go this far?

Yes Max. How can nothingness be measured? What would be the yardstick? It is quantatitive, not qualitative.

If one thinks of the universe of matter, so-called 'expanding into space,' does nothingness expand in proportion to the matter it contains and distance covered between it?

Thought makes a nonsense of the whole thing.

Now science says that space is full, not empty. But it does not ask: Is this fullness also infinite? We lack the language simply because thought cannot go there. That is my current estimate.

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

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Mon, 19 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Sep 2011 #79
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Suspiciously, space and timelessness seem to go together, and both are beyond real comprehension.

Yes, one can say some things about them, but always from the point of view of a certain interest. Thought can own neither time nor space.

Probably thought can own nothing. But it is easier for thought to generate a concept of that which can be held in the hand. And that, it takes for the real.

"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, 19 Sep 2011 #80
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
The question of distance/time and space/present probably should not be forgotten about. Put aside perhaps, not made an object of search and struggle perhaps, but surely not forgotten about.

I agree, Max. And I also include, for my own reasons, grandfather gravity in that Great Imponderableness. The physicists include it as a force, but they do not know of what type, since gravity is instantaneous over distance.

And for that same reason I suspect it is not a force, as others, but a function of time/distance/space. One could call it a dimensional force, I suggest.

If the effect of gravity, which is attraction, were to finally pull all matter back to its starting point, this would be the end of space/time. Reverse that logic and what do you get? (besides 'confused')

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

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Mon, 19 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Sep 2011 #81
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

How is space actually perceived, realised and observed in our daily lives?

I would like to bring this back to the subject of this thread, which is, 'Observations.' Look out of your window and observe it. It could be a good experiment. And it doesn't need a team of researchers!!

I would like to get back to things concrete.

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

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Mon, 19 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Sep 2011 #82
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5797 posts in this forum Offline

Mr Greene

max greene wrote:
I see thought as the "I" entangled with remembered fact. We place into memory a bare, unvarnished fact and when we recall the fact we put our "spin" on it. For me, that is thought.
It would seem that simply seeing facts and recording them in memory is not an action tainted with the "I." The seeing and recording of fact is accumulated as knowledge. I don't see this accumulation of fact (our store of knowledge) as dependent on thought. It's what we do with knowledge that becomes thought.

Mr Greene, my mistake I am sorry I disturbed you. I thought you were serious about what K had to point out. You certainly put your own spin on what K pointed out and what most anyone who tries can see for himself about thought, knowledge and memory. Are you really serious?

I know a lot of people, there are some serious people here, come to this site for the entertainment value where they can prance about with their never ending theories and pseudo intellectual pursuits. Dwelling only on the particular instead of seeing everything as part of the whole.

Ok fine. Take over the site, inflate your egos and talk your never ending bullshit. I use to wonder why not a single person I know who use to attend K's talks in Ojai, and are really serious about what K had to say, ever comes to these "forums". Because it's just bullshit, that's why. Egotistical bullshit.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Mon, 19 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 4 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 20 Sep 2011 #83
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
You certainly put your own spin on what K pointed out and what most anyone who tries can see for himself about thought, knowledge and memory. Are you really serious?

If only if you listen properly, some of them see beyond with K's pointers.
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, 20 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 20 Sep 2011 #84
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
Ok fine. Take over the site, inflate your egos and talk your never ending bullshit. . . . Not a single person . . . really serious about what K had to say, ever comes to these "forums". Because it's just bullshit, that's why. Egotistical bullshit.

God, this guy is really crazy! I really thought he had some sort of Alpha-male problem with me alone. He seemed to be accusing me of taking over the female herd, or something. But I was wrong. I admit it. He is just angry! And he supposes that this expression of anger is consistant with him being such a serious K-man while the rest are egotistical bullshitters and 'gullible women'.

(By the way, it was Ganesan, not myself, who quoted Jack's sexist comment about 'gulling a few women, which is not so difficult' and it is still there on the record. Jack did not delete that comment because he suddenly saw it was not what he meant to say. He was shamed into withdrawing it like a politician who says something non-PC, not knowing that the microphone is still switched on.)

Has he any legitimate point to make? Nope, it is just another emotional ego-attack on the site. Jack started out saying he was defending 'our site' which belongs to 'all of us.' And the moment he disagrees with someone, suddenly the site is worthless and bullshit. Such commitment!!

I pity those poor dupes who followed him willy-nilly into it. And they are even now 'recommending' his attacks on the site. Farce turns to tragedy - or is it visa-versa?

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

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Tue, 20 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 20 Sep 2011 #85
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5797 posts in this forum Offline

Mr Davidson, not only are your comments above wrong but you seem to be pulling stuff up that you were unable to settle at the time. Do you always carry so much of the past around with you? Must be a real burden for you. And anger. You seem to be carrying so much anger with you. You really have a hard time when someone pushes you out of your comfort zone don't you. Maybe you should work on that.

And please, don't blame me if most of what you say is bullshit. Not my fault.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 3 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 20 Sep 2011 #86
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

Jack

I agree with you, just to add that even listeners of K, who attended his talks at ojai or at any other places, also are ..what you call ..bullshit, but they don't want to reveal this quality in front of public.

Though some guys are exception, I remember one person, his name is David plus some thing(Rick's friend), has dared to expose himself as bullshit.You also tried:)

I don't know

This post was last updated by dhirendra singh Tue, 20 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 3 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 20 Sep 2011 #87
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
You really have a hard time when someone pushes you out of your comfort zone don't you.

Is that what you think you are doing, Jack, pushing me?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 20 Sep 2011 #88
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
And please, don't blame me if most of what you say is bullshit.

I am not blaming you, Jack. Do you feel blamed?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 20 Sep 2011 #89
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
You seem to be carrying so much anger with you.

No Jack. I am having some fun. You are very good entertainment. Please stay and take control back of the site from gullable woman and intellectual bullshitters. You are doing a very valuable work.

Let the K-men become X-men!

Mutate, mutate, before it's too late! Save the K-world from invasion!

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

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Tue, 20 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 20 Sep 2011 #90
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

dhirendra singh wrote:
David plus some thing(Rick's friend), has dared to expose himself as bullshit.

Yes Dhirendra, go for it! Expose yourself too!

But it is true, David Locke was a good one for beating his breast - even for swearing obsenities and threatening physical violence. A very daring Vietnam vet who attended some of K's talks and gave it to us full-fisted!

Was he Rick's friend? I thought he was mine!

"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
Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 158 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.)