Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Experimenter's Corner | moderated by John Raica

The Great Consciousness Puzzle


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 74 in total
Mon, 08 Jan 2018 #31
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I believe by Mr. Stamp

Stamp appears to be an honest person and as an actor he is aware of the meaning of words and the importance of reciting them accurately. Just an observation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Jan 2018 #32
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 122 posts in this forum Offline

K: "What you are...what you actually are, is being. Being is not the mind thinking. Thinking is a movement, a motion. Being is the silence that precedes the motion. You cannot see it; you cannot grasp it because you are it. The feeling that you are. The unadorned naked awareness that is always there, rarely heeded, is what you always have been, always will be. Cannot not be. You can't look for it, because it is what is looking. It is like space, you can't see it but everything is in it. Everything is it. So I say to you, 'be aware when you are unaware' let its presence warm you, fill you. Be present in the Presence."

(J. Krishnamurti - private talk with Terrence Stamp in Ojai - ca. 1986 )

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Jan 2018 #33
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

Right, beneath all those layers of memory you are nothing. But knowing this for a fact (which I certainly do) what difference does it actually make to my life?

K ends with "let it's presence warm you, fill you." etc. But in that case, what is the "it" which will warm and fill you and what is the "you" that it will fill and warm? It seems to me that K was getting carried away with his own pronouncements and the feelings that they invoked.

It certainly filled Terence Stamp with something as he was thereby transformed from the evil General Zod in the second Superman film (pre-K) to Jor-el, the Godlike father of Superman in Smallville (post-K).

Joking aside, look at the dynamic movement in the prose Stamp quoted. It starts in an almost analytical style, a pedantic and didactic explanation, quite dry, then suddenly ups the poetic ante with the unexpected phrase "the unadorned naked awareness" before rallying itself through a "so I say to you" for a final thrust, ending almost in an invocation. Stamp must have applauded the performance.

This post was last updated by Paul David son Mon, 08 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Jan 2018 #34
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 720 posts in this forum Offline

To come back to the 'Giant Jig-Saw Puzzle' of human consciousness, the philosophical purpose of creating such a 'thought experiment ' (Professor Einstein was using a similar approach) would be to create an inner sense of harmony & order which is independent (or very little dependent) of the daily pressures of our 'modern' temporal existence.

Our first experiential difficulty would be that any 'thought model' (as in any computer simulations) is fundamentally 'static', while the human 'psyche' is notoriously dynamic, constantly updating & optimising itself,(has personal 'feelings and...'a mind of its own') and its 'active trends' are not always under control- in fact...some of them they are part of the "process controllers".

Now, looking over K's shoulder -so to say- can we find any 'clues' ?
Yes, we can ! and they are all observable in the (2-way) mirror of relationship : self-interest & self-centred thinking, greed, envy, desire, fear, vulgarity, and on a more 'positive' note: moments of spontaneous joy, affection & generosity, as well as free initiative, practical cooperation, plus a lot of good will and very generous ideas & ideals. So, all these are the active trends and we should not neglect the mental role of our brain's memory which is constantly accumulating and processing the new experiences.

So, on a first approximation it is a rather complex aggregate mainly ordered along a personal & collective 'survival agenda'. Professor Bohm had this great idea to compare it to a 'standing wave' - a dynamic interaction between a multiplicity of waves moving back & forth but creating the perfect apparence of a wave that 'stands' or moves by keeping constant its overall envelope . So, inwardly the apparence of this 'standing wave' is 'me', the 'thinker', or the "observer' entity which thought itself has produced in order to keep all these diverging trends together.

This empirical model can obviously be corrected and/or further implemented, but why call it 'Puzzle' ? One practical consideration would be to create a reliable model on which we can base our search for a superior level of inner order. Then... why not use K's (all purpose) advice to just 'observe' and 'be completely aware' of whatever is happening within your own psyche ? By all means, K's 'holistic' option remains valid at any point in time , but as in entering a totally 'dark chamber' wouldn't it be reasonable to have a (mental 'tool kit' or ) background of experiential knowledge regarding what we are supposed to find there, what we should be looking for to establish some order, or even what are the potential 'dangers', etc ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Jan 2018 #35
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 122 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Then... why not use K's (all purpose) advice to just 'observe' and 'be completely aware' of whatever is happening within your own psyche ? By all means, K's 'holistic' option remains valid at any point in time , but as in entering a totally 'dark chamber' wouldn't it be reasonable to have a (mental 'tool kit' or ) background of experiential knowledge regarding what we are supposed to find there, what we should be looking for to establish some order, or even what are the potential 'dangers', etc ?

Are you asking here if 'observation' and 'awareness' are enough? What is 'understanding' (under-moving?) if it is not the pure, choiceless movement with 'whatever' is going on in the psyche, the body, etc? (The "flight of the eagle that leaves no trace"?) The problem as I see it in me, is one of a seeming 'dullness' that keeps the brain in its old tracks: the thinker/thought duality. There are moments of movement with the 'what is' and then it fades only to be 'picked up' again at a different time and a different place. But the lesson from those rare moments is that nothing else 'really' matters.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 12 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Jan 2018 #36
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 17 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Then... why not use K's (all purpose) advice to just 'observe' and 'be completely aware' of whatever is happening within your own psyche ? By all means, K's 'holistic' option remains valid at any point in time , but as in entering a totally 'dark chamber' wouldn't it be reasonable to have a (mental 'tool kit' or ) background of experiential knowledge regarding what we are supposed to find there, what we should be looking for to establish some order, or even what are the potential 'dangers', etc ?

No knowledge/ideas. Ideas are only adding to the darkness, as I see it, John. If you have any idea/knowledge where you're going or what you're looking for, you're stuck in the past. Ideas come out of the past, obviously. You'll never see anything new if you're anchored in the past...in ideas/knowledge...the self. There is no 'mental tool kit' to prepare one for what is always new. Just my view, for what it's worth.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 12 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Jan 2018 #37
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Ideas are only adding to the darkness. . . There is no 'mental tool kit' to prepare one . . .

I think the clue is in John's phrase, "but as in entering a totally 'dark chamber'"

There is no separate "I" that can enter a "dark chamber." It is all too metaphorical, too abstract for me.

I think K would have pointed out that a dark chamber is exactly what we are right now, not what we are in but what we are. A friend of mine (now departed) Rev Lucius Walker Jnr once told the story of how a little girl had asked him what the stars were. "It's as if," she said, "someone has been poking holes in the darkness." Now there's a metaphor!

I wish it were as easy as being able to say, "see you on the other side."

This post was last updated by Paul David son Fri, 12 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Jan 2018 #38
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 17 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

Ideas are only adding to the darkness, as I see it, John

Not if they are the expression of a directly perceived truth, Tom

Right....K's words for example. K expresses himself and his understanding in words and concepts, of course. I meant that for you or I to attempt to use words/knowledge as a "toolkit" will only serve to keep one fully in the dark. Maybe I misunderstood how you were using the term "toolkit".

Tom Paine wrote:

There is no 'mental tool kit' to prepare one for what is always new.

OK, but then...how you would even recognise it as 'new' or even, how will you notice it at all ?

How will you notice the flower? The beautiful sunset? It's right in front of you. The beauty is staring you in the face....unless we're blind to it because we suffer. How do I notice my pain...my conflict....my suffering? How could I not notice it? Not sure what you're asking. If you recognize the flower then that's idea/knowledge. But to just look at it you don't need knowledge. In fact knowledge will interfere in your looking....or seeing it anew. This is basic K 101 or course. And just more knowledge unless we see/understand it for our self free of knowledge.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 13 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Jan 2018 #39
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 122 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
As in any serious technical endeavour, until we have a very clear and intimate knowledge of how the whole system works we will be inevitably limited by what Dr Bohm calls 'hidden variables' .

Can we talk a bit about what these 'hidden variables. might consist of?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 #40
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
we're getting - in my humble view' a realistic 'thought model' which may have an authentic learning value, in the same way a computerised 'flight simulator' is a very useful training tool for the future pilots

But in the case of the human mind, which is interested in understanding itself, why does it need to simulate first?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 #41
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
K's (hidden ?) rationale seems to be that once we solve 'holistically' the new issues that he's helping to open up...we will be able to solve even the older ones.

I think that is a misplaced judgement about K, John. Mainly because it introduces time . . . first this and then that. K never accepted that rationale and he was very outspoken about it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 #42
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
In fact our 'personal' problems are also changing with time- at 60 you certainly don't have the same problems as when you were a teenager .

Yes and know. It seems to me, in my life, that though the details change the basic reactive behaviors do not. As I age I am presented with changed realities and changed demands and I react to them, mostly, from the same nexus. It seems that what is essentially 'me' (using the term 'essence' figuratively) is that nexus, around which the crust of experience has formed. Really, my constant problem is not what is thrown at me in terms of the changing challenges but the 'me' that responds to them, which has been pretty constant during my entire life, or at least since I was very small.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 #43
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
we 'evolve' along with our problems, but we seldom endeavor to tackle the issue of ending their 'original cause'- our collective heritage 'self-interest'

I don't think what happens can be called evolution, John. But I get your general point. I recall K talking about himself as a child as 'that boy,' being one who failed to respond to anger with anger. The anger of others never sparked the same anger within him. He referred to himself as a freak for being one who did not learn to respond with anger, as a young child.

It seems to be that as a species, even before humans came about, the social animals we were had a dichotomous reality, the communal and the individual, imprinted in our instinctive psyches. We were set up by evolution to respond either with love or with hate. K suggests he never once knew hate, not in his entire life.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 #44
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 17 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
Really, my constant problem is not what is thrown at me in terms of the changing challenges but the 'me' that responds to them, which has been pretty constant during my entire life, or at least since I was very small.

Yes, it's the 'me' as you say, which is mostly constant throughout our life....the sames fundamental division is created by 'me'/consciousness...whether in the young child or adult.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 #45
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 122 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
in even the area of our very intimate 'self-understanding' there is a subliminal cleavage between the 'observer' and 'what is being observed'- ( starting with 'naming' it, then evaluating it and surreptitiously trying to 'fix it' or improve or banish it) And even if not really 'hidden', the 'naming & evaluating' process is not only very quick, but has also become an active part of ...maintaining a 'good mental image' of ourselves

A "mental image" that swings, depending on circumstances, between self-love to self-loathing and all the states in between. The question is why is there a necessity for a 'self-image' at all? Whatever may be the reason for its existence though, it needs to be seen as being a factor in maintaining the false duality of observer separate from what is being observed.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 #46
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:

Paul David son wrote:

We were set up by evolution to respond either with love or with hate. K suggests he never once knew hate, not in his entire life.

Well, Paul, the same K seems to contradict you : here is a quote from his sixth dialogue with David Bohm from the Ending of Time

Yes, the quote was from here

But is that what most interests you out of all I wrote, that I seemed to contradict K?

In any case, I cannot see any contradiction. K says in that discussion that evolution, the material and temporal process, produced man with the animal instincts to love and to hate. And he asks why the boy 'X' had love and the others didn't. The boy (himself) never responded to hate with hate but the others did. K suggests that at the beginning of man someone or some people must have implanted love in the human brain but that insight is needed to light the brain to love. And that insight, in his case, was there, he suggests, right from the start. In others it isn't.

He said, "Nothing can affect it, that is my point. I am getting at it slowly. Maltreatment, beating, being put into all kinds of situations, it hasn't affected it. Why? You follow sir? I think we better stop . . . We are coming to something. What do you think?"

The discussion ends without resolving the issue

John Raica wrote:
And then, of course our whole evolution appears as a matter of existential choice: do I want to survive in the ' tough world of 'reality' ?- then my 'self-centredness' becomes natural and has certainly 'evolved' all the way to its the modern archetype of a ( totally selfish but nevertheless... ) 'stable genius' ( guess who ?) .
But if I can retrace my steps back to the point of that 'wrong turning', the 'other' (Goodness) active ingredient of human consciousness is still available and K's whole existence was the living proof

Well, I don't see that as taking K at "face value." I see it as interpreting K and expanding from that interpretation on the basis of opinion.

Nowhere did K ever say choice was involved, existential or not. Neither did he allow for evolution from that point. I think it better to stay with what K said and find out.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 #47
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The question is why is there a necessity for a 'self-image' at all?

Is there such a necessity? Does a very young child have a self-image? I recall, as a young child, being shocked when told I was this or I was that. And I could not say a word about myself in that way. I did know what I liked, what gave me pleasure and what gave me displeasure, but that is not self-image in the way K referred to it. K liked and disliked certain things. The development of tastes does not necessitate self-image. What creates self-image in most cases, it seems to me, is the effects of constant approbation and disapproval of others upon the child who is dependent upon those same others for physical and emotional nourishment.

I was in a cafe some years ago where there was a mother and young child (about 3) at the next table. The mother's friend came in and her first interaction with the infant was to ask, "Have you been a good girl for Mummy today?"

In Germanic tradition Santa Claus appears at Xmas with the Devil who will take bad children away in his sack. In the Czech republic Santa and old Nick (Krampus) arrive in costume to scare each child witless. Have you been good? You get a present. Have you been bad? The Devil is there ready to take you away in his sack. watch the video here)

Well, the whole Santa tradition is edged with violence, very insidious in some places, crude in others. But it follows on what is done day-to-day in families. One is taught by carrot and stick to correspond to the wishes of others and it is this which necessitates that the child must be able to look at him/herself as if through the eyes of those who would judge it. Who remembers the wretched effects of school?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 #48
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 17 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
Nowhere did K ever say choice was involved, existential or not.

Indeed....choice is division...the same fundamental division that operates in our daily living all the time. There's no 'good' or 'bad' choices other than in practical matters...choosing healthy food over junk food, for example. But choice can never transform 'me' since it's an action of that very 'me' who is the maker of division.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 13 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 #49
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Indeed....choice is division...the same fundamental division that operates in our daily living all the time. There's no 'good' or 'bad' choices other than in practical matters...choosing healthy food over junk food, for example. But choice can never transform 'me' since it's an action of that very 'me' who is the maker of division.

Yes, psychological choice is being discussed, "I will be this" or "I will be that." K did not say it was a matter of choice but something that simply was the case, from the start. For instance:

K: "Which means what? He had insight right from the beginning. You follow what I am saying? Right from childhood . . . "

But it quite escapes me how K could have proposed that:

"at the beginning there were some people, or there were half a dozen people who never responded to hate because they had Love, and those people had 'implanted' this thing in the human mind"

And as he added a few lines further down in the same discussion:

"I said that, some 'X', 'Y', 'Z', or A, B, C, when man began, implanted in man this thing, love, which is causeless, which will not respond to hate.. . . "

And it still doesn't answer his own inquiry because had there been any such people capable of "implanting" love in the human brain, what brought them about? It defers cause in the same way the idea of there being a Creator defers cause. Then at least they call him 'the uncreated Creator.' But as for X.Y.Z . . . Were they aliens, Gods??? It makes not sense, even from the K perspective.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 #50
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 122 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
it is this which necessitates that the child must be able to look at him/herself as if through the eyes of those who would judge it.

I would say that this applies to all of us. In this context here of 'uncovering' the 'hidden' variables' in our psyche, this seems to be very important. Imposed from the outside, instilled in myriad forms in us as children, we go forth in our lives trying to make the 'image' that formed of ourself, 'stronger', 'better'. And often without any understanding of what the consequences may or may not be of carrying unwittingly, whatever 'image' has been formed of ourself. It gets 'hurt' and we suffer. It gets praised and we are exalted. It gets attacked and we defend it. It gets frightened and we seek safety and comfort in attachment, belief, etc. To put a K. question a bit differently, can the brain/mind free itself from its creation of, and attachment to, the self-image?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 13 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 #51
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 17 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Now your question was do we really need it at all ? Not really, if we have some minimal independent mans of livelhood.

"It" being self image....do we need it? There were many around K who had financial security and independence. What would you say was the factor keeping their self image in place? I'm assuming they had a self image or they wouldn't keep attending the talks year after year after year. What keeps this 'me' alive...in any of us?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 #52
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
In this context here of 'uncovering' the 'hidden' variables' in our psyche, this seems to be very important.

Yes, indeed Dan. My doubt is that simply knowing them by seeing them (reflected in all ones responses) does not in itself dissolve them. I can trace back the hurts, sometimes to an original source, but can I go back to that bifurcation and take another route. I seems to me that I cannot. Why not? Perhaps because the brain, the complex of neural connections, has organised itself around them in a thorough fashion. That is how it seems to me, though it may not be so.

K said the seeing is the action. It must be a very special kind of seeing in that case.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 #53
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 122 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
My doubt is that simply knowing them by seeing them (reflected in all ones responses) does not in itself dissolve them.

What it seems to me is that what needs to go on here is not 'introspection' or subtle self-analysis. The 'thinker' (self) can be involved in both of those with some 'goal' or other 'result' in mind. In my understanding what is called for here is for the brain to 'observe', perceive itself in a new way. This is what K. has called "choiceless awareness". ('meditation'?). If there is a 'goal', desire for this or that ( "dissolution", 'freedom" etc.), it is in the realm of the self, the 'thinker', and the introduction of 'time'.) The question K. originally posed was, "Can the brain free itself from its self-created bondage?" That would be the "mutation", that freedom. Thought is not free, it cannot move with the swiftness of 'what is'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 14 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jan 2018 #54
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
What it seems to me is that what needs to go on here is not 'introspection' or subtle self-analysis.

Maybe we think we are seeing directly but actually it is just the process of thought, running over it. It clicks every time it reaches a significant moment of recognition but then it is back to running over it again, running over the running over. I think if thought stopped at that point and simply stayed with it . . . . but it seems it can't so what am I doing thinking about thinking about it?

Does that also seem to you the process that happens, Dan?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jan 2018 #55
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

I think it's obvious that this mass of hurts, images and reactions we carry are utterly useless. That is the bundle K would have us jettison. It seems however that the force of inertia wins out.

There's a story about a man who visits the psychoanalyst on behalf of his brother who is suffering chicken delusions and goes about the house clucking and flapping his arms. Now he has turned broody, sits in a corner all day, hunched up on his haunches, trying in vain to lay eggs and becoming increasingly depressed.

"Bring him to me and I'll cure him," says the analyst.

"No," says the man. "Can't you just do something for the depression? You see, sir, we're a poor family and we could do with the eggs."

This post was last updated by Paul David son Sun, 14 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
2 days ago #56
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 142 posts in this forum Offline

Well yes John, the mind is polarized around the 'me.'

But let's go into that a little deeper. There is not, really, the mind and the 'me' around which it is polarized, as two distinct things. Neither is their any, separate 'spiritual essence' which is thereby being devalued or stifled. As it has grown and developed, all three of those elements are the same.

You are your 'me.' The 'me' is the essential dynamic of what you are, how you have developed and from which actions/reactions take place.

John Raica wrote:
this field of spiritual energy can exist independently of the support of our material body & brain.

It's not clear what you mean here. Are you saying that the mind (the actual mind that is 'me') is exogenous to the brain" Are you saying the mind that exists is non-material or that it can become so?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
2 days ago #57
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 17 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
You are your 'me.' The 'me' is the essential dynamic of what you are, how you have developed and from which actions/reactions take place.

Thank you both, Paul and John, for your discussion here. I'm dealing with some very real physical pain and discomfort today so may not be able to give my full attention to the discussion. Your post, and your point that I quoted above, Paul, is consistent with K's "the thinker is the thought". The mind and 'me' are one and the same. It's also consistent with Bernadette Roberts' contention (in The Experience of No Self) that consciousness is the self(me). My everyday consciousness and the self are one and the same. I want to look further into what John was saying, but have to stop now. Will come back to this later if the pain eases up enough so that I can type comfortably.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
2 days ago #58
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 122 posts in this forum Offline

The self-image (as we're calling it) is formed in childhood as a protection or defense against the society the child is growing up in. Maybe among our very ancient, primitive ancestors there was no need of it. The tribe was everything and no need to have a separate identity? But as things got more complicated, it was necessary for the child to know what was acceptable to its peers among others and what might be cause for ostracism. But coming up to modern day, what we see is a civilization of these 'self-images' competing against one another for the perks that are available to those who have an abundant amount of shrewdness, cunning, respectability etc. (or just plain 'luck') But is this self-protective mechanism that seems so necessary, that is so inevitable in childhood, just an 'anachronism' as we age? Is 'maturity' actually the ending of, the 'vanishing' of this self-image? Is this humanity's true birthright? That turns everything upside down. The erudition, the accumulated knowledge, the wealth, the manners, 'self-esteem' etc. which always been considered hallmarks of maturity can now be seen to 'just' be accomplishments of a fixed, static, hardened self-image? Maturity is in the leaving behind the child's protective covering. Maturity is being innocent, vulnerable... I'm reminded of something John posted a while back which was "no deeds to do, no promises to keep.." that for some of those completely ensconced in the 'higher' echelons of a 'brutal' society, it is difficult to even contemplate this because they have so much to 'lose'!

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott 2 days ago.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
2 days ago #59
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 17 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is 'maturity' actually the ending of, the 'vanishing' of this self-image? Is this humanity's true birthright?

Are you separate from it, so that you can observe it..analyze it? Or is the observer the observed...the analyzer the analyzed? It's what I am, right? There's no one separate to act upon it...to try to eliminate it....to modify it. It's more than just an image, isn't it? It's beliefs, opinions, conclusions, ideals, emotions, fear, desire, attachment...

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine 2 days ago.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
2 days ago #60
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 122 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Are you separate from it, so that you can observe it..analyze it?

Sure to a degree. If you insult me, my self-image reacts in one way or another. But in that moment of being 'insulted' there can be a 'space' in which the question can arise, "is what he said true?" or 'what was his reason for saying that?" That's a different reaction than the 'child's' isn't it? But that can be 'practiced', since 'level-headedness' is valued in society. The self-image is nothing if not cunning. K. has called it "evil", like a "snake" that has to be watched. We're discussing here, 'hidden variables' and this mental image formed in us is probably the most 'hidden'. (In plain sight?)

Tom Paine wrote:
It's what I am, right? It's more than just an image, isn't it? It's beliefs, opinions, conclusions, ideals, emotions, fear, desire, attachment...

Well I don't know of course, but I'd say that "no, it's not what you are". You are not that accumulation and neither am I. Otherwise there would be no possibility for us of 'freedom from the known'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 74 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.)