Welcome to The Duncan Trussell Family Hour Center for Self-Optimization

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

DinduNuffin

THE KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE!!! 1 WEEK LEFT!!! WIN BIG BIG MONEY!!!

526 posts in this topic
KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE!!!! WIN BIG MONEY!!!
  •  

    DinduNuffin said:

    @theloniousmuff, 

    The speaker never said you should live without the image. That is for the individual to discern. The speaker describes the limiting nature of the image. 

    Its subtle, but it's there sirs.



    I have completely lost the thread of what is going down in this thread.


    @Doodie, what originally started out as a challenge proposed by dindu quickly turned into a never-ending back and forth, about various topics, all of which have nothing at all to do with the original challenge.
    breeeeve
  • @mike_m,

    Just a discussion sir, of things related to the challenge.
  • Imagine.. At the next Olympics, weeks and weeks of discussions about various sports, with no competitions happening.
    breeeeve
  • @Mike_m, 

    Oops! Sir you've missed some key information. This entire discussion relates to our ability to function as a collective mechanism of discernment. remember that's how the winner is selected. Unanimity, sir! We certainly don't arrive there with a bunch of self images asserting themselves. So through this discussion the capacity to discern a winner is bred. That is the very nature of this puzzle, sir. We all must discern for any one to win. 
     
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-02-15 15:23:40
  • I didn't miss anything. Can't discern a winner if there are no participants in the actual challenge.
    breeeeve
  • @mike_m, 

    Yeah, we covered that too sir. If no one enters a winner is determined through a vote based on their contribution to the discussion. If no one votes the speaker will use his one vote to discern a winner. Someone will get the BIG BIG MONEY regardless.
  • I'll believe it when it happens
    breeeeve
  • @mike_m,

    you see! indeed! oh indeed sir! that is something! there is no reason to believe, only to discern! 
    Now we are really getting to it!
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-02-15 15:46:01
  • mike_m said:

    Here's a pic of my dog taking a dump in the beautiful desert.

    http://i.imgur.com/qXC8Ivr.jpg


     
    breeeeve
  • Sir, may we discuss how best one could spend $1500 (or however much the BiG Big money is) to better the world?
  • @19232,

    we may discuss anything you like sir.
  • First we must discern what the world needs most, sir.
  • @19232,

    ah, but does the world need anything? or is this another clever trick by the mind, once again in search of security?
  • Do we mean world as in "everything that exists" or world as in "what humans on this planet needs" An important distinction IMO.

    Can a human speak for the "whole of existence/world"? I think not. We can assume a lot, but that is about it. We are very good at using thought/concepts to safeguard ourselves from chaos.

    As to the latter, I can only speak for myself, and my wants comes from following my desires and giving in to them, thus creating a pattern of wants. These patterns turn into well groomed habits which might or might not be destructive.
     
    Post edited by Danlo at 2016-02-16 06:17:16
    There are rules in language, and language is needed for the stating of the rules.
  • What about ending genital mutilation would that make the world better?
  • Last night I did some meth and read Dianetics - can I enter my realization for BIG BIG money?
  • @19232, 

    To the speaker yes. But maybe not to the genital mutilation salesman.
  • @dr_feelgood, 

    You may enter anything you wish sir. Whatever it is, we will go into it, and discern.
  • mike_m said:

     

    mike_m said:

    Here's a pic of my dog taking a dump in the beautiful desert.

    http://i.imgur.com/qXC8Ivr.jpg


     

     
    breeeeve
  • @mike_m, 

    Beautiful! show the speaker the nature of your programming, your conditioning. Then we will discover together the cunning searches of the mind. Security sir. What is it to you?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-02-16 21:13:00
  • @19232, 

    Really though sir, can we independently universally discern that genital mutilation is inherently wrong?
  • That's a tough one, on one hand it is obviously wrong, on the other hand who's to say it isn't just natural.

    Like I imagine some kind of animal that goes around pecking off other animals peckers, who's to say that this pecker-pecker is wrong? Me? I'm no judge of nature.

    And as you said, bad for the mutilated / good for the mutilator. 
    Bad for a woman that can never receive sexual satisfaction / good for the man that owns her.

    So I guess everything has both good and bad.
    Yin and yang.
    50/50

    It's like selling bath salts as mdma, bad for buyer / good for dealer.
    Or murdering someone so that your business can profit.
  • February 17th is the same day that Krishnamurti died saying "None of you understood a single word of what I said".

    Let's take the hint and let this thread die.
    image
    If you don't learn how to program your own mind, the world will program it for you.
  • Rokazulu said:

    February 17th is the same day that Krishnamurti died saying "None of you understood a single word of what I said".

    Let's take the hint and let this thread die.



    I would advice you to read through this whole bitch again son. It is not about Krishnamurti, its about something else.

    Stay tuned for december 2016, when a galactic metaconcept will arise.
     
    There are rules in language, and language is needed for the stating of the rules.
  • Danlo said:

     

    Rokazulu said:

    February 17th is the same day that Krishnamurti died saying "None of you understood a single word of what I said".

    Let's take the hint and let this thread die.




    I would advice you to read through this whole bitch again son. It is not about Krishnamurti, its about something else.

    Stay tuned for december 2016, when a galactic metaconcept will arise.
     



    Man I've watched all the Krishnamurti videos. I don't see anything different from them and this thread. I mean the thread starts off with "read Krishnamurti". Where do you think the OP comes up with most of these answers anyways? 

    Also why do I keep bumping it? I'm an absolute madman.
    Post edited by Rokazulu at 2016-02-18 09:13:50
    image
    If you don't learn how to program your own mind, the world will program it for you.
  • @rokazulu, 

    Sir, you may indeed have watched all of krishnamurti's videos, but if you understood, your posts would not repeatedly indicate that you have preconceived notions regarding the nature of this thread. You would simply contribute to the dialog, without injecting belief. 

    Sir, the very title/description of this thread conflicts with what krishnamurti discerned in at least three ways. As discussed, this was done intentionally by the speaker to demonstrate certain points and draw the attention of certain participants. We may go into it if it's not clear. 

    This thread is about concept, perception, hypocrisy, duality and a group's ability to function as an integrated whole. It is a puzzle, solvable only through the understanding of the subjective and abstract motivations of man.
  • @19232, 

    Indeed. So this brings us back to right action. Its nature, fundamentally. Sir, how is it determined what action is right when two parties have opposing/conflicting interests? 

    Does the genital mutilator see universally, independently discernible beauty, or does he look through an image which was developed through the false search for security?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-02-18 11:33:39
  • @danlo,

    Indeed. But the metaconcept may reveal itself much earlier to the keen mind. A mind free of the imposition of preconception/belief.
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @rokazulu, 

    Sir, you may indeed have watched all of krishnamurti's videos, but if you understood, your posts would not repeatedly indicate that you have preconceived notions regarding the nature of this thread. You would simply contribute to the dialog, without injecting belief. 

    .



    I believe you have preconceived notions about me and my thoughts about this thread.
     
    image
    If you don't learn how to program your own mind, the world will program it for you.
  • @rokazulu, 

    Sir, what is the difference between a preconceived belief and a discernment? Go slowly sir. There is a subtlety that eludes you.
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-02-18 14:32:19
  • Sir let us look at two situations:

    First let us imagine a genital mutilation procedure.
    Second let us imagine the 69 sex position (one of my favourites)

    So in the first instance we could say that there isn't a mutual goodness to the situation. An unpleaseantness occurs for at least one person.

    Now we look at the second instance, this is a mutual goodness.
    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you - this saying has a deep meaning.

    If we look at others we can see that to them they are a "me" and everyone else is an "other" correct? 
    So in essence we are all "I"
    So when "I" mutilates "I", then "I" don't think it is good.

    So if we as the mutilator, can discern that we as the mutilated, would fair better without the mutilation occurring, "I" should not mutilate "I".

    Conversely "I" am pleased when "I" enjoy the 69 sex position with "I"
  • 19232 said:

    Sir let us look at two situations:

    First let us imagine a genital mutilation procedure.
    Second let us imagine the 69 sex position (one of my favourites)

    So in the first instance we could say that there isn't a mutual goodness to the situation. An unpleaseantness occurs for at least one person.

    Now we look at the second instance, this is a mutual goodness.
    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you - this saying has a deep meaning.

    If we look at others we can see that to them they are a "me" and everyone else is an "other" correct? 
    So in essence we are all "I"
    So when "I" mutilates "I", then "I" don't think it is good.

    So if we as the mutilator, can discern that we as the mutilated, would fair better without the mutilation occurring, "I" should not mutilate "I".

    Conversely "I" am pleased when "I" enjoy the 69 sex position with "I"



    I will put all of this on a T-shirt.
     
    There are rules in language, and language is needed for the stating of the rules.
  • @19232, 

    INDEED! INDEED! INDEED! A duality sirs! What sir, happens when one discerns the full significance of duality? It's mechanism? 

    Oh indeed indeed sirs! We are really getting to it!
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-02-18 15:15:23
  • Danlo said:

     

    19232 said:

    Sir let us look at two situations:

    First let us imagine a genital mutilation procedure.
    Second let us imagine the 69 sex position (one of my favourites)

    So in the first instance we could say that there isn't a mutual goodness to the situation. An unpleaseantness occurs for at least one person.

    Now we look at the second instance, this is a mutual goodness.
    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you - this saying has a deep meaning.

    If we look at others we can see that to them they are a "me" and everyone else is an "other" correct? 
    So in essence we are all "I"
    So when "I" mutilates "I", then "I" don't think it is good.

    So if we as the mutilator, can discern that we as the mutilated, would fair better without the mutilation occurring, "I" should not mutilate "I".

    Conversely "I" am pleased when "I" enjoy the 69 sex position with "I"



    I will put all of this on a T-shirt.
     


    I will buy 10.
    You've got the butterflies all tied up
    Don't make me chase you
    Even doves have pride
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @rokazulu, 

    Sir, what is the difference between a preconceived belief and a discernment? Go slowly sir. There is a subtlety that eludes you.



    What is the difference between acting like a tool and being one?
    image
    If you don't learn how to program your own mind, the world will program it for you.
  • @rokazulu, 

    Watch your environment sir! Watch the movement of your mind. It's subtle pressures. The answers are right there for you. Or sir, you could ask your moms dick.
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @rokazulu, 

    Watch your environment sir! Watch the movement of your mind. It's subtle pressures. The answers are right there for you. Or sir, you could ask your moms dick.



    I apologize I didn't mean to call you a tool DinduNuffin.

    I am not sure why I'm getting mad over this thread. It triggers something inside me because I got frustrated over Krishnamurti at one point. I remember listening to him while high one day and they were talking about why people compare themselves to others. They kept talking in circles forever and finally Krishnamurti just said "BECAUSE THEY ARE STUPID!". This made me have a minor panic attack and a small insight at the same time. I stopped listening to him too deeply after that. I am not going to get what he is saying in this lifetime. 
     
    image
    If you don't learn how to program your own mind, the world will program it for you.
  • Rokazulu, 

    Sir, the statement regarding your potential to understand krishnamurti, is it not limiting? Limiting your action, your interest etc?
  • Sir, discerning for oneself.
    Is this the key to knowledge?
  • @19232,

    what do we mean by knowledge? if we mean the acquisitive form of knowledge instilled in us by culture, the accumulation of the operating system, discernment may lead us in another direction completely. 

    to rephrase, sir, culture promotes the aggrandizement of knowledge in hopes of attaining culturally instilled qualities. as cogs in this machine we follow. a mind fed a diet of insufficiency can do nothing but express desire. discernment may allow one to see without these culturally instilled opinions, the acquisitive selfish ways of the past. discernment, sir, allows us to see what is. to see the validity of our own personal quests. the significance. and the pressures behind them.
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-02-25 22:40:30
  • Bump
    You've got the butterflies all tied up
    Don't make me chase you
    Even doves have pride
  • @theloniousmuff,

    sir, may we talk about the individual?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-03-04 20:27:44
  • bump
    breeeeve
  • @mike_m, @dr_feelgood,

    sirs, 
    what is it that makes you each individuals? what is the fabric from which individuality is sewn? may we go into it sirs?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-03-04 22:02:24
  • bump
    breeeeve
  • @mike_m,

    now what is it sir, that thing that causes one to respond in this way or that? the expression of the individual, what is it?
  • humpty bumpty
  • lol, the beast got bumped.

    Can we trust the voice that claims this so called individuality? That voice is speaking in a language created by other voices. It speaks in concepts with dubious definitions. So, if this voice claims to be an individual, how can we tell whether it is a lie or the truth?

    That being said, I think that most of us takes the role as individual because it is easier to fit in that way. Most people take individuality as a given, so to avoid conflict it is easier to be one of many individuals in a flock. To claim otherwise invites madness into your programmed mind. Not everyone likes this challenge.

    To say that we are definitely an individual also leads to self importance, which again leads to a definite distinction between "me" and " you", which again manifests in opposition, war and general conflict.

    Can this be avoided? It is definitely a challenge, but I can not shake the feeling that we are supposed to experience this separation. All is learning in one way or another.
    There are rules in language, and language is needed for the stating of the rules.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE!!!! WIN BIG MONEY!!!
  • @danlo,

    indeed sir! the very voice of individuality is the reverberation of experience. now, before we go into whether this is to be avoided or embraced, let's imagine there is a conscious being, brought into awareness without a single experience or memory of another conscious being, not a single point of comparison, not a single way to affix itself to any of the countless continuums of quality or virtue, sir would individuality be a novel concept to this particular conscious entity?
  • A would think so yes. Although if there were other objects which this being could interact with, albeit not conscious, would that being not have a sense of comparison towards those objects?
     
    There are rules in language, and language is needed for the stating of the rules.
  • @danlo,

    indeed, a sense of comparison between objects would exist. a sense of self would exist limited to that which is derived from sensory input. but mind would not operate outside of these confines with respect to individuality. mind would be able to manipulate the objects in its environment but the concept of individuality would not be, as it is relative and dependent on the accumulation of certain experiences. so we see that individuality, represents the separation between man and man. so comprehensively, individuality is a measure of relativity, then confined to an approximation we sometimes call the ego. 

    now sir, if we introduce a second conscious entity in to the environment of the first, how would mind's perception of itself become skewed? 
     
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-03-09 14:54:19
  • . March 15 QuoteFlag
    Hrair
    Where were we sir?
  • 19232 said:

    Where were we sir?



    haha
     
    There are rules in language, and language is needed for the stating of the rules.
  • @Danlo go back to your malazan thread! i think i just cleared some shit up for you
    breeeeve
  • @19232,

    ah sir! we were talking about individuality. the process of the i. its nature fundamentally. 

    sir, the i consciousness, is it like the forrest, in that we are sometimes compelled to see it as a stationary thing. fitting tightly into a certain definition. when in truth it is not stationary. it moves with the shifting forces of its environment. once a forest, now a marsh, then a desert. but never one truly definable entity, outside of an approximation of the mind. 

    is this not like the i process sir? a movement that we try to define? a shifting of approximations? a sliding of certain scales and measurements? of certain qualities or virtues? the young man. the old man. the dead man. could it be that the i is exclusively based on comparative thought? only able to survive in the comparison of one's quality to another? 

    could we explore this before moving on sir?
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @19232, 

    INDEED! INDEED! INDEED! A duality sirs! What sir, happens when one discerns the full significance of duality? It's mechanism? 

    Oh indeed indeed sirs! We are really getting to it!



    I'm so hard right now .Sirs, may I go into you?
  • . March 16 QuoteFlag
    Hrair
    DinduNuffin said:

    @19232,

    ah sir! we were talking about individuality. the process of the i. its nature fundamentally. 

    sir, the i consciousness, is it like the forrest, in that we are sometimes compelled to see it as a stationary thing. fitting tightly into a certain definition. when in truth it is not stationary. it moves with the shifting forces of its environment. once a forest, now a marsh, then a desert. but never one truly definable entity, outside of an approximation of the mind. 

    is this not like the i process sir? a movement that we try to define? a shifting of approximations? a sliding of certain scales and measurements? of certain qualities or virtues? the young man. the old man. the dead man. could it be that the i is exclusively based on comparative thought? only able to survive in the comparison of one's quality to another? 

    could we explore this before moving on sir?



    The I sir, is the experience of life.
    The limit of awareness even to its full extent, even beyond a Buddha.
    The I is unchangeable yet it is always changing.
    The I is immoveable yet it IS movement.
    The I is what experiences itself by creating itself and then creating experience.
    Process and function, but also nonprocess and nonfunction.
    A shifting that can't possibly exist, and so is nothing and everything.
    Young man, young star, old man, old star, for there never was an old man, and there always is an old star.
    That is the I sir.
     
  • @19232, 

    Indeed sir. But the I, and its relation to comparative thought. Is it not exclusively composed of comparative thought? Alternatively put, can the I process exist without experience/memory of interaction with another conscious mind? Reworded sir, does the I begin to dissolve without recent memories of interaction? 

    The speaker is suggesting that the I both emerges and recedes through interaction, as I is the culmination of social measurement, seperate completely from discernable concept, and built entirely through comparison.
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-03-17 19:10:34
  • Sir when will the challenge end? Will a winner be crowned soon?
  • @dinosaurjrjr, 

    The winner will be discerned 1 year from the contest start date. So late December. Sir the I, and its relation to comparative thought.... Is it exclusively composed of comparative thought? Alternatively put, can the I process exist without experience/memory of interaction with another conscious mind? Reworded sir, does the I begin to dissolve without recent memories of interaction? 

    The speaker is suggesting that the I both emerges and recedes through interaction, as I is the culmination of social measurement, seperate completely from discernable concept, and built entirely through comparison. May we go into it?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-03-17 19:54:28
  • I don't want to go into it maaaaan. The speaker wants the $$$ but the speaker can't win :(
  • @dinosaur, 

    What is want sir, fundamentally? That is the real question. Let's not concern ourselves with the particular wants of the subjective mind, but rather the nature of want itself. 

    Sir, why does the transient I process want?
  • . March 17 QuoteFlag
    Hrair
    Yes sir, under the delusion of comparative thought, the delusion of I is completely the result of comparison.
    But what is the vessel that holds this thought?
    For I doubt even the existence of the vessel, yet, here I am.
  • . March 17 QuoteFlag
    Hrair
    Sir, when one looks at a bright white light, cannot he also see the colours escaping it?
    Red orange yellow green blue magenta violet?
    And the colours in this sequence will forever be no matter what, such is the nature of it.
    Why does this bring me satori?
    The nature of things?
  • @19232,

    why do you doubt the existence of the vessel sir? is it not a discernible entity? you discern it. the speaker discerns it. the vessel is a real as the transient environment that shapes it. 

    first what is satori sir? the speaker is unfamiliar with this term. 
     
  • . March 17 QuoteFlag
    Hrair
    Sir one must never define what one thing may be, whenceforth he attatches to not the thing itself but to a definition of said thing, and the thingness in projects.
    Even after I say such a thing as what not to do I doom myself and the things I say.
    For it would be better to have stayed silent in understanding.
    However at one time or another one devises that it may be useful to divulge an understanding that one has, as best as his words may allow, hoping for the true transmission of that understanding which may come at a later date, possibly instantly.
    Sir you provoke the Buddha.

    Satori is a poor excuse for a word meaning the divine understanding that is un-nameable.
  • @19232,

    could then satori be considered actuality? in that it is the most accurate reflection of reality given the limitations of ones own physiology? 

    now sir, how does the transient i process relate to satori or actuality? is the transient i process woven from the same thread as actuality?
  • . March 18 QuoteFlag
    Hrair
    Yes indeed sir.
    Undeniably woven from the actuality.
  • @19232,

    but wait sir! could it be that actuality weaves only that which is universally discernible, and the transient i process is woven through subjective approximation of the many continuums of quality? qualities that only exist in contrast to one another?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-03-19 07:28:56
  • Bump


     
    breeeeve
  • @agentmike,

    what shall we discuss next sir? perhaps we could touch on ignorance? how, through ignorance, the transient i process is continually reformed? how through ignorance, or lack of discernment, is born want, thereby creating suffering? may we go into it sir?
  • AgentMike said:

     

    Bump


     

     
  • @dr_feelgood,

    the transient i process sir, is it born and sustained through ignorance? ignorance causing choice, preventing discernment?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-03-19 18:12:47
  • quit calling us ignorant and we may respond
    breeeeve
  • p.s.












    bump
    breeeeve
  • AgentMike said:

    p.s.












    bump


    @AgentMike
    I have avoided this thread. Is it worth me reading the previous 2478 posts to be up to date?
     
    There are no facts, only interpretations
  • @nondual,

    what is worth sir? does worth, in this example, not imply the acquisitive pursuance of virtue? of quality? in the wake of this pursuance is there not born suffering? suffering which pressures a hopeful becoming? and is this becoming not a movement between false approximations? a hamster wheel of self created suffering? 

    sir, can we look without the background noise? without the subjective spin that skews reality? can we see without the image maker perpetually refurbishing the transient i process?
  • Occasionally I can see without the subjective spin. Or at least a very diminished level of this subjectivity.

    today at work I felt like I had a mild but tight anxiety. I soon remembered my message board icon of the snake chasing it's own tail and knew I was chasing myself, a phantom, something not real. I made a concious effort to stop the cyclical thought and refocus my attention as to not look upon my own tail but to just look and I and felt liberated... for a passing moment... 

    Sometimes chasing my own tail is not so bad though, and like a dumb dog who chases it's own tail I can often find the illusion to be alot of fun and I dont really suffer much from my folly
    There are no facts, only interpretations
  • . March 20 QuoteFlag
    Hrair
    DinduNuffin said:

    @19232,

    but wait sir! could it be that actuality weaves only that which is universally discernible, and the transient i process is woven through subjective approximation of the many continuums of quality? qualities that only exist in contrast to one another?



    If I listened to I what would I hear?
    And with which ear is the listening done with? It I clap myhands and I am the ony one around to hear it, I could say that both I and I heard I clapping.
     
  • @19232, 

    Indeed sir, there is only the I. That which speaks is the I. That which considers is the I. The metaconcept is embedded within understanding the significance and self perpetuating nature of the transient, ever shifting I process. 

    The true nature of the I process, which sustains itself through want, thereby engendering fear, followed by choice through ignorance, then approximation and back to want, must be discerned not away from the I process, not while divided into some fragment of one's self, but through observing the significance of the I process in one's self. May we go into this sir?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-03-20 19:06:35
  • @nondual,

    the emphasis on the comprehension of individual consciousness is not to be taken as a further encouragement for self-centredness and the narrowing down of comprehensive action. it is only through understanding the process of individual consciousness that there can be spontaneous and true action, without creating or further increasing sorrow and conflict. 

    this comprehension of the process of individuality is not to be confounded with the acceptance of beliefs or of faith, or the giving of oneself over to logical conclusions and definitions. to know really, there must be no inclination to be satisfied by the immediate superficial solution of problems. many people think that by mere economic rearrangement, most human problems will be solved. or again, many are easily satisfied with the explanations concerning the hereafter, themselves, or culture. but this is not knowledge, this is not comprehension, this is merely an entity that satisfies and dulls its sorrowing mind. to know, to comprehend, there must be will, there must be persistence, there must be a continual and essential curiosity. 

    so then, what is individuality? please understand that the speaker is not laying emphasis on egotism or on one's getting rid of it. but when you understand for yourself the process of the i, then there is a possibility of bringing it to an end. to comprehend this process you must begin fundamentally. is the so called soul real or an illusion, is it unique? does it exist apart and exert its influence over the physiological or psychological being? 

    shall we, by studying the tissues and organic fluids, know what is thought, what is mind, what is that consciousness which is hidden in living matter? by studying sociological behaviour shall we know what man is? economists and physicists have left all this aside, and we, as individuals, we who are suffering, must go into this question deeply and sincerely. as we are dealing with ourselves, we need great persistence, right effort and patience to comprehend ourselves. physicists, economist, sociologists may give us theories, systems, and techniques, but we ourselves have to make the right effort to understand the process of our consciousness to penetrate through the many illusions to reality. 

    philosophers have given us certain theories and concepts regarding consciousness and individuality. there are many conflicting views, beliefs, and assertions concerning reality. each one of us, through introspection and observation realize that there is a living reality concealed in matter, but it plays very little part in our daily life. it is denied in our activities, in our everyday conduct. because we have built up a series of walls of self protective memories, it has become almost impossible to know what is the real. there are many beliefs, many theories, many assertions about individuality, its processes, its consciousness and its continuity, and the choice of what is true among these varied opinions and beliefs is left to you and the speaker. choice is left to those who are not utterly in subjugation to the authority of tradition, belief and ideal, and to those who have not committed themselves intellectually or emotionally to faith. 

    the speaker suggests there is another way. a choiceless perception. and that it is absolutely essential for our well being, for our action and fulfillment, to understand fully what is individuality. 

    now to discern truth, thought must be unbiased, mind must be without want, choiceless. if you observe yourself in action you will see that your want, through the background of tradition, false values, and self protective memories, renews the i process each moment, which then impedes true discernment. 

    so there must be deep choiceless perception to comprehend the process of consciousness. such a necessity arises only when there is suffering. to discover the cause of suffering, mind must be acute, pliable, choiceless. not dulled by want nor subdued by theories. if there is no discernment of the process of individual consciousness, then action will ever create confusion, limitation, and so bring about suffering and conflict. as long as we are in this process, our inquiry should be concerned with the cause. but unfortunately most of us are seeking remedies. the comprehension of the cause of suffering brings about a choiceless change of will in the plenitude of our being. then experience without its accumulative memories, which impede comprehension and action, has deep significance. 

    so true experience leads to the discernment of the process of consciousness which is individuality, and cannot intensify the individual consciousness. to discern deeply the cause of suffering, you cannot separate your self from the world, from life, and contemplate consciousness apart, for only in the very process of living can you comprehend consciousness. 

    so we see that deep discernment of choiceless life implies great alertness and right effort. the speaker is now going to explain what, to me, is consciousness from which arises individuality, but please bear this in mind, that it is not actuality to you, it can only be a theory. to know its actuality your mind must be capable of choiceless perception, free from the craving for comfort and security. it is not enough to be merely logical. you will know whether what the speaker says is true only through your own experience, and to experience, the mind must be free of self created barriers. it is most difficult to be vulnerable, so that the movement of life can be comprehended with a sensitive mind, able to discern that which is enduring and true. to understand the process of individuality you require great intelligence and not the intervention of intellect. to awaken that intelligence there must be the deep urge to know but not to speculate. 

    please bear in mind that what to me is a certainty, a fact, must be to you a theory, and the mere repetition of these words does not constitute the knowledge of actuality. it can be but a hypothesis, nothing more. only through experimentation and action can you discern for yourself what is reality. then it is of no person, neither yours nor mine. 

    now, all life is energy, it is conditioning and conditioned, and this energy is in itself an acting development that creates its own material - the body with its cells and sensation, perception, discrimination and consciousness. both energy, and forms of energy are ever intermingling, and this makes consciousness appear conceptual as well as actual. individual consciousness is the result of ignorance, tendency, want, craving. this ignorance is without beginning and is compounded with energy, which in its self acting development is unique, and this is what gives uniqueness to individuality. 

    ignorance has no beginning but it can be brought to an end. the very comprehension that ignorance is self sustaining brings that process to an end. that is, you observe how through your own activities you are sustaining ignorance, how through craving, which engenders fear, ignorance is maintained, and how this gives continuity to the i process, to consciousness. this ignorance, this i process is maintaining itself through its own volitional activities born of want, craving. with the cessation of self nourishment the i process comes to an end. 
     
  • cont'd..

    you may wonder if one can really live without want? is it practical? in the lives of most people want, craving, plays a tremendous part; their whole existence is the vigorous process of want, and so they cannot imagine life, its richness and beauty, its relationship and conduct, without want. when you begin to discern, through experimentation, how action born of want creates its own limitation, then there is a change 'of' will. until then there is only a change 'in' will. it is the self sustaining activity of ignorance that gives to consciousness continuity, ever reforming itself. the fundamental change of will is intelligence/discernment. 

    may we go into it sir?
  • CosmEffect said:

    Bump


     
  • Enough talk, gotta walk the walk.
    There are rules in language, and language is needed for the stating of the rules.
  • @danlo,

    indeed sir! you see! but if the effort is fleeting, so shall be the results. so a state of constant curiosity into one's self must be awakened. a state of discernment, intelligence. without this constant curiosity, one will be perpetually re-constricted by the limitations of the ever reforming i process. 

    may we discuss together how to awaken this constant curiosity?
  • . March 22 QuoteFlag
    Hrair
    DinduNuffin said:

    @19232, 

    Indeed sir, there is only the I. That which speaks is the I. That which considers is the I. The metaconcept is embedded within understanding the significance and self perpetuating nature of the transient, ever shifting I process. 

    The true nature of the I process, which sustains itself through want, thereby engendering fear, followed by choice through ignorance, then approximation and back to want, must be discerned not away from the I process, not while divided into some fragment of one's self, but through observing the significance of the I process in one's self. May we go into this sir?



    Could we say sir, that the Reward of the nature of things is only ever nature itself?
  • @19232,

    is that to say that perceiving the significance of nature or actuality is the greatest expression of beauty? to the speaker, beauty is the quality in a person or a thing that gives pleasure to the senses or the mind.
  • . March 22 QuoteFlag
    Hrair
    Perception of the nature could never be called the greatest, yet, it is the greatest.
    It wouldn't matter really, even if ones perception is as obscured as the lake in a hurricane, if one has enough time ones lake will eventually see a clear day so that thou wilt notice the reflection of the mountains and the sky.

    There is no rush.

    Can I tell you that you have three big toes?
    Tell me if I am wrong.

    How could you believe me what I say? When you look down at your own feet you see two big toes.

    How could I believe myself?
    When i cannot see your feet.

    A falsehood has occurred in the falseless!

    Could it be said that there is equal falsehood and truth in the nature of things?
  • @19232, 

    If one's time is spent encapsulated by ideology, limited by belief, tradition, fear, memory and so on, are they to ever percieve the full spectrum of life? And if another discerns through his own action the limiting nature of the transient I process, which man will see the mountains and the sky?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-03-22 19:28:18
  • . March 22 QuoteFlag
    Hrair
    Indeed, that I whom sees the true nature of things does so with a clear mind and therefore can see the reflection of mountain and sky.
  • @19232, 

    Indeed sir! Now, could we go into want? And how it sustains the I process?
  • . April 3 QuoteFlag
    Hrair
    Sir may we boil want down to the illusion of separation?
  • @19232, 

    Sirs, did you hear? A question has been put:

    Can want, at its very core, be understood to be the illusion of separation? Is this it sir?
  • . April 3 QuoteFlag
    Hrair
    Yeh that's the question
  • @19232, 

    What is separation sir?
  • . April 3 QuoteFlag
    Hrair
    Hmm, we may have discussed that one, if I am not mistaken my answer was: A differential.?
  • @19232,

    ah! indeed we have. a differential. so there is an erroneously perceived differential between the self and the items of environment, and this differential is the basis of want? is this it sir?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE!!!! WIN BIG MONEY!!!
  • . April 7 QuoteFlag
    Hrair
    This is the natural state of all things, could it be said that without preconceptions and beliefs complete understanding is the natural state of things?
  • @19232, 

    hmm. perhaps. or perhaps the natural state of things is this chaotic cluster of preconception and belief we are faced with? or perhaps it could be both, depending on the thought/action of yourself, the speaker and the rest of them. sir, is the natural state of things the result of that which leads up to the now? 
     
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-04-12 14:25:36
  • HinduMuffin, can you offer assistance in helping me discern the location of my set of keys? The last time I had them was when I got home from the river last week. I had to have used them to get inside the door but I have no recollection or memory of what happened to them immediately after that. I cannot confirm or deny that they are in the apartment even after searching nearly everywhere inside. I tried discerning their whereabouts all week, with no luck. Seeing as you discern things, maybe you can help discern the possibilities of what happened to my keys since I have last seen them.

    Please help sir muffin, you're my only hope.

    (I'm not serious about this but any thoughts would be appreciated)
  • @cosmeffect, 

    the speaker, not unlike yourself, just returned from the river. The speaker discerned a number of geese, ducks, three beavers and one large raccoon - which admittedly startled the friendly neighbourhood speaker. Despite the environmental quiet, mind was busy spontaneously ejecting thought. Thought of the past. Projection of the future. Approximation of the present. you're familiar with this movement. The speaker also saw another animal. a woman. frail by comparison. And younger than she deserved to be. The speaker has seen her before. She comes to watch the sunset each evening. There she sat as the speaker walked by. Looking down a twenty foot drop to the confluence. One river runs parallel to the path while another zig zags west towards the horizon. The sky had a reddish tinge. Something the woman has surely seen many times before, yet somehow it kept her attention. the speaker or yourself might keep walking, wrapped up in the projections of mind, but she watched as slowly the earth rotated her further into darkness. she powered up her wheelchair and went home. 

    As the speaker walked by he considered what it must be like to view the world through her eyes. through this quickly deteriorating shell. Through this hopeless future of which she's been prescribed. Yet she didn't look sad. She didn't look worried. Instead she looked truly fulfilled. at peace sir. Was it this small slice of nature that brought her peace, or was it instead her interpretation? Her ability to see the true significance of the birds, the water, the darkening sky? 

    Sir, if you don't find them consider changing your locks. Could be some scumbag in your building scooped them up. 
     
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-04-15 22:10:44
  • During the time I spent at the river, the most salient and recallable discernment I had was seeing the visible light reflect off of the abundant ebbing and flowing peaks and troughs of the waves of water and entering my eyes. Although the visible light was a little intense at times, which caused the action of raising my hand above my eyes to omit some of said light from entering my eyes, I continued hypothesizing – from past experiences and thoughts – that all of what could be considered as nature is many overlapping waves, exhibiting a construction and deconstruction what is and isn't. An ebb and flow of the primordial duality created between chaos and cosmos, nothing and everything, or so-called order and disorder.

    What do you think it is that creates a bifurcation between the one and the many?
    Is it that for nothing to 'exist', everything must also exist as well and that the flow of time is a fundamental, procedural process from null to all?
  • . April 16 QuoteFlag
    Hrair
    DinduNuffin said:

    @19232, 

    hmm. perhaps. or perhaps the natural state of things is this chaotic cluster of preconception and belief we are faced with? or perhaps it could be both, depending on the thought/action of yourself, the speaker and the rest of them. sir, is the natural state of things the result of that which leads up to the now? 
     



    i assume that there is no other thing except for the nature of the way things have occured, that can be said to be the result of the now.
    however, there is only ever the now, things happening, yes, it is the natural state of things to be 'chaotic cluster fucks' for there is nothing except nature, correct?

     
  • @cosmeffect,

    a question has been put sirs: what is it that creates bifurcation between the one and the many? 

    first let's not speculate sir, instead let's discern. let's think back to the day we were born, was there the i? was there a particular opinion of oneself? a particular fear? a particular association? a particular belief? an ideal? 

    what about when you first learned your name sir? do you remember that day? most of us don't consider why we cannot remember these things, but let's consider them now. 

    if we think deeply, we can see that the particular i is a composition of memories. these memories have associations based on certain values/qualities accumulated through experience. this leads to the formation of opinion, then belief, then assertion, then duality and then religion and war. 

    we see that the i is not a clear approximation. nor is it stationary. it is a movement. today i make be smart, relative to my experience/understanding of what is stupid. tomorrow i may be stupid, if i become surrounded by those with more knowledge - depending on how i define these terms of course.

    so we see that the i is a transient movement, only existing in relativity to another. sir, what would the i be composed of if it never met another conscious mind to compare itself to? 
     
  • The 'I' would mainly be composed of awareness or presentational immediacy of the natural world through a focal point of what may be considered the subjectivity of an organismic process – not entirely bifurcated from the grander process or of the natural world – which is really one process or procedure that includes an infinitesimal amount of subprocesses.

    With that, where is the bifurcation between the one super process and all the processes that make it up? Through the limits of their extent? Their transiencies? What limits a process to be transient and not eternal?
  • @19232, 

    indeed sir. This is the natural state of things and it is a relative cluster of misunderstanding/preconception. How then sir, do we come collectively to integral understanding, to intelligence? Sir, how do we eliminate self perpetuating ignorance and free ourselves from the ever spinning wheel of want and the related ramblings of fear and security?
  • @cosmeffect, 

    Sir, it is consciousness itself that bifurcates the meta process in this regard. The next question, however, is not so simple. To restate: What limits a process to be transient and not eternal? 

    To answer this question, may we begin by pairing our understandings of the words process, transient and eternal? Is a process a movement along a certain mechanistic plane? Is transient the antithesis of eternal? Or is the eternal that which forms the transient?
  • DinduNuffin said:


    What limits a process to be transient and not eternal? 

    To answer this question, may we begin by pairing our understandings of the words process, transient and eternal?



    Process: A procedural flow of successive actual occasions. Transient: A process of actual occasions with temporal extension, limited by duration. Eternal: A process of actual occasions without temporal extension, unlimited by duration.

    Now actual occasions may require an under standing. Actual occasion: A fundamental, atomistic aspect of actuality, which is irreducible to anything but itself and the infinitesimal amount of other actual occasions that preceded and influenced the contempory actual occasion.

    What limits a procedural flow of successive fundamental aspects of actuality to be limited in duration and not unlimited in duration?

    Phrased this way, a possible resolution to the question put forth is that if there are an infinitesimal amount of successive influential occasions that constitute a contempory actual occasion and if there are no boundaries between one occasion and another, so a procedural flow has a complementary aspects of simultaneously being limited and unlimited in duration. Restated, a process has an infinite amount of transient occasions that make up a single eternal occasion.

    The resolution has the presumptions that nothing is actually discrete and everything weaves into everything else.
    Post edited by CosmEffect at 2016-04-19 01:27:06
  • @cosmeffect, 

    The speaker has just been informed he must get cat food now. It is logical! Discernable! It is truth, sir. He will reply to your comment shortly.
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-04-19 18:38:02
  • @cosmeffect,

    indeed sir, you see! the integral whole! it is the one! and the one is god! the one process. god. the eternal integrated movement. 

    so we see that what creates the divide between the one integrated movement, or god, and the transient, the consciousness mind, is in fact, the fragmented conscious mind, so we then ask what limits a process to be transient when it is in fact part of the integral whole? is this it sir? is this the question?
  • That is the question, but I think I'll try and figure it out for myself, unless you would like to get into it.

    I do have another question regarding a comment of yours though.
     
    DinduNuffin said:

    the speaker's favourite books are by the speaker.



    Is there any titles that could be shared?
    Post edited by CosmEffect at 2016-04-19 20:09:47
  • @cosmeffect,

    may we go into it sir. the speaker does not know the answer. if we could discern it together? through sequential logic? 

    sir, is consciousness transient? not as part of an integrated movement, but from the perspective of a particular entity? a particular set of memories, beliefs, fears and so on. is this collection of thought transient or eternal?
  • It was asked earlier if transient is the antithesis of eternal. Although transiency may be limited in duration and eternity is unlimited in duration, transiency is not the antithesis, but time devoid would be the antithesis, which could also be unlimited by duration. If there are an infinite set of sequential, transient occurrences making up any other occurrence, each occurance itself is also eternal. There is then the dual aspects of any occurrence as being simultaneously transient and eternal.

    There being an infinite amount of discrete, transient yet eternal ccurrences that goes into any other occurrence and which all exert any sort of influence, from the most minute to the highly salient, consciousness too could be considered complementarilly transient yet eternal. Each procress you mention weaves it's influences through each successive occurrence of the specific, once contemporary occurring process even when it isn't presentationally immediate in the conscious process.
  • @cosmeffect,

    so it seems it could be considered both. consciousness that is. both transient and eternal. transient as it is fleeting and eternal as it is integral. is that it sir? 

    if that is it, could we examine next how this applies to the process of the i? that is, the transient aspect? this mechanical perpetuation of the self? could we examine this next sir?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-04-19 21:09:27
  • Indeed.

    Applied to the I, a process of occurrences, or actual occasions, can exhibit a structuralized pattern of actuality between them through the transfer and interrelationship of information one discrete occurence and the next. It is through a patterned process of occurences that allows for the processual I to come about. 

    The mechanistic action of self has is through different integrated, information exchanges between processes with varying degrees of information apprehension among one discrete occurence and any other. 

    It perpetuates because there is a process made of an infinitude of subprocesses, some of which we refer to as the physical self and some of which could be referred to as the mental self (although the two may not always mutually exclude of include the other), and there is a certain persistence between various process that appear, by perception, to be correlated as a single entity.
    Post edited by CosmEffect at 2016-04-19 22:28:26
  • @cosmeffect, 

    so we have the process of the I, a movement of sub processes. Integrated with the greater meta process, which creates the mirror by which the self emerges through contrast. Meaning the self, the particular opinions, judgements of oneself, emerge only through comparison. We see the I as transient, in that it is a constantly shifting approximation of the self. Shifting with the accumulation of experience, which again creates the mirror by which the self is seen. So what fundamentally perpetuates the I? Put differently, what is the one thing, the one process, that, if it were eliminated, would end the transient shifting of the I? Is it fear? Is it want? Ignorance? Security? What is it sir?
  • If there is one process and just one perpetuating the I that, if eliminated, would end the transient shifting of the I, it would be the fundamental process of concrescence. 

    Through the concrescence of prehended information to the point of the satisfaction of any processual occasion comes about the presentational immediacy of a vector feeling of any one process of occasion. It is within a structured organization of satisfied vector feelings which are presentationally immediate that a self can arise, via the prehension of information within a nexus of processual occasions, each with it's own concresence and then satisfied vector feeling. 

    The self is a structured nexus of concrescences of prehended information and every processual occasion contributes it's own satisfied vector feeling to the structured nexus. This structured nexus bifurcates the organismic self from environment through the saliency of information prehended during the concrescence of the structured nexus of occasions, which itself is an occasion.

    It is through a localized structured nexus of occasions with locally salient information prehended that perpetuates as a self. This self can identify as a self due to the persistant structure of salient information prehended from one occasion to the next, each occasion either being in the process of concrescence or having reached it's satisfaction, with all occasions contributing a vector feeling which make up the mental and physical aspects of the self.

    The fact that a self of structured organismic nexus of occasions can identify as anything is through the multitude of various salient prehended vector feelings within the nexus which manifest as various mental properties of that organic nexus, which create a bifurcation between self and evironmental. The higher the saliency of prehended information, the higher semblance to a self can the nexus of occasions can identify as.

    The transient shifting of self comes about because there is an infinitude of occasions, each with it's unique information, which are all perpetually perishing after they reach their satisfaction, and in each contemporary occasion there is a novelty of unique information prehended in the process of concrescence and no one moment is the the same as any past moment. Applied to a organismic nexus of occasions, there is unique information prehension in each moment of occasion that leads to a vector feeling of self.


    Tl;dr Concrescence
    Post edited by CosmEffect at 2016-04-22 03:38:50
  • @cosmeffect,

    sir, what would remain if concrescence were eliminated? would anything remain? would a single plant grow? would the sun shine? would the force of gravity pull matter together? 

    indeed, you are correct. the transient i process would be eliminated with the removal of concrescence, but what else? is it possible for one to remain conscious without the transient nature of the i?
  • What's your discernment on the being of conscious without there being a transient I?
    Post edited by CosmEffect at 2016-04-23 23:04:01
  • @cosmeffect,

    it is only through discernment that one can see the fallacy of the transient i.
  • @cosmeffect,

    meaning that only through the elimination of ignorance can the self perpetuating process of the i come to an end. the i is an illusion sir, not a tangibility, that refreshes itself through ignorance. may we go into it?
  • What if someone were to drink six cups of coffee and listened to a Krishnamurti talk on mp3. Would that make me a winner?
    Adoni Avalokitesvara Self Empty Me
  • As long as there is an object i.e. the body there is an I. There is mental activity. Until there is an end to ignorance you say there will be transience? But what is the nature of transience?
    Adoni Avalokitesvara Self Empty Me
  • Aleph Jupiter Omega Choronzon Alpha Abbadon Gamma Charlie Echo Void Chronos and Psilocybin Changeling Quanta Kelvin Savant. See I can make shit up, too.
    Adoni Avalokitesvara Self Empty Me
  • Insane inane and out of control so in other words enlightened. Lobotomize your daughters. Hrair crying alligator tears. Joint depression. Word Salad? Polish sausage.
    Adoni Avalokitesvara Self Empty Me
  • You don't say! Someone jokingly call me a doctor. I have all the cred. Smart to the T. Underground G. Hella tight in the knee. Someone Bleezey me a Hizzay. K-Tart and Co-Pay that ho. Try and succeed. Nine in the wing is hella difficult but the proper stars will place you in the leedle neding protrapt'r and sewing in the loom. Never go past forget. Try and you will succeed. 200 Ted units to the buddhic body in space. Please pay me or give me a bone to suck the marrow out of because life isn't giving me any leads. I must go now. Please refer to the Tower tarot card. Please me please me don't forget me. Just leave the bleezay. Got this straight off the Hizzay. Metamime Pantamine gonna go down on this dime piece ho got me straight nelly. #RIP2016 Prince tickets Swallow the buck and shoot some fucking ducks. Now please excuse me while I polish these shoes and listen to my show while I eat some saltine crackers and carrots with ranch. Pow Bang Boom

    TL;DR Concrescence dunno what that means but I've heard Terence McKenna say it before. He is played a lot on the Psychedelic Salon. Also that is where I listened to a Krishnamurti talk. I bet we have a lot on common, G. Gee, A pickle for a nickel. Please, let me be. Bee of my mind. Engrossed. On the blue lotus feet of my divine mother. My Divine Mother, My Divine Mother.
    Adoni Avalokitesvara Self Empty Me
  • That last one took nearly 15 minutes. Pay up or send me some J.K. material and 2+ grams of mushies. Only then can I complete your request. Until then I am. I AM. Cleanse your damn aura. AUM SHIRAM. SHEET METAL SCULPTURES. AUM SHIRAM. SHREE SIRHAM. K SIRHAM SHIRAM.
    Adoni Avalokitesvara Self Empty Me
  • See what this shit has got me doing? I'm mentally yelling at the forum now. Some Q's aren't meant to be answered by monkeys. Take your medicine and try not to think of pink elephants. Who is your teacher and what does he do? Mentram ganash. Ego deviations. Scope out your mouth. Wat s this isvertisment for mouth wash? Rample on, brother, ramble on. Garh you really started this one. In the meantime.... self actualization. Sometimes I wonder. Mostly though I just wish. What is your nature? Cn yu tell me tht? TFYQA what is your age? Where do you live? good mind trip. Love and lust er I mean light.
    Adoni Avalokitesvara Self Empty Me
  • Whoa that one was only five minutes. I'm keeping really good trac of this today. I'm really on top of the ball. I want a zeebra. as soon as I collect this Krishnamurti money I'm going to invest in zoo animals. I love having zero ambition. Can we go into it? IMO you are an intellectual bully and a troll. But can we go into it? Cn we? Plz my welfare is in the form of a check fromthe goverment becuase I'm schizophrenix and stuffs. My meditation group meets on tuesdays and the other zen group meets on Sundays. It feels like proper speech for me to write that it makes no difference to me because I transcend categories. What the beatles are to rock and roll is me to spirituality. Very disorganized. But Mostly Inattentive. Unless you are speaking about their pop days. I can tell you the very song that took them from pop to rock.
    Adoni Avalokitesvara Self Empty Me
  • seven mintutes ?? I'm self actualizing not self analyzing!!
    Adoni Avalokitesvara Self Empty Me
  • @steingoomer, 

    Ah sir! What entheusiasm! But are you truly ready to discuss with the speaker? Not to argue, not to assert belief, but to truly discern, to truly find out. Are you ready sir? Most will run from this conversation. Most often the protective nature of the ego will compel one to exude some angry slime or assert the pre existing societal labels in an attempt to refurbish ones self image. For the dissolution of the self image is the death of the perpetually fearful and ignorant I process. Most of us find so much comfort in maintaining preconception. There is so much safety in this network of assumption, isn't there sir? Now true discernment involves seeing what is, and that means discerning the transient and ignorant nature of the I process. 

    So where shall we begin sir?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-04-25 16:51:30
  • are you into gay sex to any extent? what about DMT? travel?
    Adoni Avalokitesvara Self Empty Me
  • @stringoomer, 

    "Most often the protective nature of the ego will compel one to exude some angry slime or assert the pre existing societal labels in an attempt to refurbish ones self image." 
    The speaker.
  • . April 25 QuoteFlag
    Hrair
    Ouch
  • @19232, 

    Indeed sir. it seems one has very little control over the expressions of the I. One is subject to a certain set of experiences, born to a certain family where they are taught certain lessons, exposed to certain ideals and protected from others. And through this process, the self learns to defend its own approximation from the challenges presented by environment, and even from the very thing that generates these approximations. 

    Have you seen this sir? in yourself? in others? how the self protects itself from dissolution by developing patterns of protective thought that act as the guardians of preconception? may we discuss these guardians sir? these protectors of ideals?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-04-25 21:56:36
  • . April 26 QuoteFlag
    Hrair
    I see this all the time, in myself, in others, it seems as though the thing in which you so oft speak of, lets call it a "thought cloud" does indeed seem to possess these traits, however, once this "thought cloud" is cleared by the will of the self, it is shown to be an enigmatic ghost.
    these "guardians" or "thought clouds" are what we may also call a demon?
    and here i go to clarify why this may be so.

    These "thought clouds" seem to have some real power, however, you can clearly see that they arealmost nothing at all and only have the perception of power, the deception of falsehood, and all their real power is, is fear.
    should I go on sir?

    The trickery of such "guardians" is for one to believe in falsehood, lies, untruths through fear, and is fundamentally, deception.

    it seems as though these demons are a brain reflex of some sort? part of the danger avoidance protocol?


     
  • @19232, (@steingoomer too)

    yes! danger avoidance! security! you see! if one has a certain ideal, and the accuracy of this ideal is challenged through interaction with environment, mind will excrete secondary preconceptions that rationalize the current stance, the current self approximation. i am christian, i learn that the bible doesn't make sense or is racist etc, well then god works in mysterious ways! yuk yuk! or i am muslim, and i realize other religions are equal/similar mechanically, well then other people are infidels! or i am smart, i do something that another sees as unwise, they tell me i am stupid, then that person, to me, becomes an asshole so i can maintain my current self approximation. this network of secondary thoughts are the guardians of preconception that protect the dissolution of the self image. the dissolution of the self image, in part or in whole, is the very root of fear. 

    now sir, what happens if we take every single preconception and guardian of preconception and add them all up and smoosh them all together into one cumulative self directed danger avoiding mechanism of idealism? what have we then? and what if we threaten that entire cumulative mechanism with one single all encompassing threat? what have we then sir? 
  • now sir, what happens if we take every single preconception and guardian of preconception and add them all up and smoosh them all together into one cumulative self directed danger avoiding mechanism of idealism? what have we then? and what if we threaten that entire cumulative mechanism with one single all encompassing threat? what have we then sir? /blockquote>

    Spoken word/ slam poetry
    Post edited by 022501 at 2016-04-26 10:10:29
    Adoni Avalokitesvara Self Empty Me
  • go slowly, @steingoomer.

    sir, if you wish to engage the speaker in slam poetry, please begin. but be forewarned.. the rhyme skills of the speaker may prove to be comparatively quite unique and devastating.
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-04-26 15:12:38
  • Adoni Avalokitesvara Self Empty Me
  • @steingoomer, 

    may we talk about respect sir? to the speaker respect is an agreement. a trade off. to the speaker the showing of respect is distasteful. if there were truly respect you would not only show it to the speaker but to everyone. to everything. instead we pick and choose who we show respect to. traditionally, we show respect to those who we believe will potentially give us something, teach us something. so we act in such a way as not to offend their particular ideation. 

    now what are we really doing when showing respect? are we not showing respect to an idea that one should display consideration to the person who may help them? and out of this false respect there is born contempt for others. there is no consideration of the ideas in themselves, but unfortunately only of the person who gives forth these ideas. in this lies grave danger, leading to reciprocal exploitation. The mere respect of authority indicates fear which breeds many illusions. from this false respect, there arises the artificial distinction between leaders and followers, with its many obvious and subtle forms of exploitation. where there is no intelligence there is respect for the few and disdain for the rest. 

    may we discuss respect sir? or shall we discuss pity?
  • The paths that lead either to pity or respect for me are ways of filling the void. Isn't it a wonder all the things monkeys can do with opposing thumbs? Dolphins and whales will never start fires.
    Adoni Avalokitesvara Self Empty Me
  • Adoni Avalokitesvara Self Empty Me
  • @steingoomer, 

    Sir, if it seems like word salad, meanings are being missed. Go slowly and ask questions if it doesn't make sense to you. The speaker will go into it. The speaker is no bully sir. Nor is he enlightened. He is simply the reverberation of experience just like yourself. We are equals. Most importantly, don't take what the speaker says as gospel. That's how followers are created. You don't want to become a follower? A mindless cog? Do you sir? Nor does the speaker want to be a leader. The very act of leading devalues the uniqueness of those following. We are equal in our uniqueness. We are forged from the same steel. Built from the same network of potential experiences. We just represent different slices. 

    Now sir, may we examine ignorance? This time we will move along a plane of logic together. We will go slowly, and discern. It will not be the speaker telling @steingoomer what is what. It will not be an argument about whos beliefs are best. We will not make assertions. Instead we will have a discussion. Together. Looking not through our particular preconceptions but rather directly at what is. 

    Ignorance sir, of the mechanical nature of the mind, of the movement of the ever shifting approximation called the I, ignorance of the processes of the self, is what perpetuates the I. Let's examine this statement. 

    Now, to you, the I exists regardless of one's understanding, one's ignorance of the self. It exists as long as the physical organism is alive. This points to an incongruence in our definitions of the I. So, for the purpose of this discussion, may we bifurcate consciousness to better understand its mechanism? we will peel away the physical sensations, leaving behind only the self approximations. These self approximations we will call the I. Unless you would prefer to call it something else? You see, it matters not what we call it, only what it is. 

    Now imagine for a moment sir that you were reborn and taken to another place. Given another name. Had a different set of experiences. Developed a different set of fears, anxieties, ideals, the grooves of thought. Would your self approximation be congruent with the that of the current @steingoomer? Or would this approximation called the I differ in some way?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-04-27 20:17:01
  • I have thought about it before to some extent and there is some trepidation in approximations made about the human experience. Take reincarnation for example. I learn more about it every time someone shares their opinion of it. 

    Maybe once I am freed from the mortal coil there will be a completely new understanding of the human condition. I would believe that there is a coming into new understandings. As a straight white male I'm continually faced with contra-indications from others about my uniqueness. 

    You have a decent metaprogrammer. It is one thing to write on a forum though about things that it is easy to string together words to make a point and just briefly I will attempt to restate what you have written above. 

    There is a renewed undertaking when two people put their thinking together to reach new heights in making models. Models are all that we can really make to describe experience and we should each to our best to make models of our experience if only for the sake of humanness. Beyond is beyond. The space between can be reached if we attempt though ritual or what have you to break free of the consensus trance and be breathed into new levels of awareness. 

    There are certain beliefs regarding karma that in the Bhakti yoga tradition it is understood create unifying factors where before there was only separateness. I think you take many of your ideas from Krishnamurti. From my understanding as soon as or shortly after he was appointed chief of proceedings in a branch of some theosophical society he dissolved the structure of the society in a single speech given in the early-mid 1900's, and for reasons that someone with such uniqueness as yourself could only fathom. I don't think the dissolution was up for debate based on my current beliefs about what occurred. 

    Isn't that just another form of conditioning? Who is to say that it is in any way useful to each of our development?\\\\ 

    I'm only a budding changeling bent on immortality so there is no saying really whether there is any validity in my current understanding because daily there is a given amount of facing the waterfall so to be challenged by the environment. I signed up for the forum in '12 and didn't begin posting until there was readiness in late '15. I take your intellectual challenges and do my best to be honest. This however isn't the whole truth. continue?
    Adoni Avalokitesvara Self Empty Me
  • @steingoomer,

    sir, if we just assert we are not discussing. not moving along a plane of logic together. how are we to understand the perpetuation of the i through ignorance if we just alternatively assert beliefs/preconceptions? 

    now, if we could back up for a moment and discover together the divide between belief and discernment. 

    reincarnation, being freed from the mortal coil, the decency of the speakers programming, traditional methods/rituals.. these are beliefs sir! belief is the very root of conflict. let's discuss together without belief! without preconception! instead with reasoning and discernment. only then are we truly discussing. otherwise we are just exclaiming perspective. discussion sir, moves along a logical plane. 

    you see sir, all thought can be divided into either belief/preconception or discernment. through recognizing this divide one can end conflict internally. try it in yourself. prove the speaker wrong. and remember when the speaker says thought, he is referring to not only those spontaneous thoughts and those we pursue, but also emotion and action. 

    to the speaker, krishnamurti is meaningless. he was the reverberation of a certain set of experiences. nothing more. he was not a teacher. not a guru. so let's not worry about what krishnamurti said or did. 

    now if we could sir, we were discussing ignorance. you agree that if you were sent back in time and your experiences were altered so would your self approximation, yes? this much is clear? one's approximation of themselves is based on their particular network of experiences, their memories, yes? are we together?
  • I don't wish to pursue this any further. In the grand scheme of things I wish to be totally honest so upon death.... it will all feel like science fiction.
    Adoni Avalokitesvara Self Empty Me
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE!!!! WIN BIG MONEY!!!
  • @steingoomer,

    most will run from this particular conversation. for most, the protective measures of the ego, or guardians of preconception, will guide the self approximation, or the i, far away from a conversation that may challenge its current belief structure. if we must part ways sir, may we leave with a question? what is the mechanism which guides you away from this conversation? what is the root of your apprehension? moments ago you were willing to engage, but now, something has changed. your transient i process has seemingly spun on its heels, leaving the speaker, once again, basking in the fruit of his prediction. why sir, does your i process drive you away?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-04-28 20:29:11
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @cosmeffect,

    meaning that only through the elimination of ignorance can the self perpetuating process of the i come to an end. the i is an illusion sir, not a tangibility, that refreshes itself through ignorance. may we go into it?



    Is this ignorance necessarily a choice of any one entity's thoughts or can there there also be ignorance stemming out of lack of information regarding the actuality of the self that leads to this illusion?
     
  • @cosmeffect,

    that's it! you see! ignorance is not a choice! it is a fundamental force driving the living creature! indeed sir!! indeed!! 

    mind begins with the capacity for sensation and memory. meaning it is inherently ignorant to culture and environment. without this inherent ignorance, mind cannot adapt to shifting environment. that is why there must be death sir. new life brings new ignorance, therefore new adaptability. now, the transient i process is the very flowering of ignorance, which sustains itself through fear, developed through sensation and memory. are we in agreement sir?
  • We are in agreement. But what happens when it's sustenance of fear diminishes? Intelligent thought? How would one, if not to remove but to diminish, the fear driving said ignorance?
  • @cosmeffect,

    would you elaborate sir?
  • If we were to reduce the influence that fear has, through diminishing the occurence of the process, incorperating it with other processes that would exert greater influence on thoughts and actions, or through the removal of the fear process entirely, how would one go doing that?
  • @cosmeffect,

    to discern whether one can be free of fear, we must first understand what is fear. to the speaker, fear is an effort of the mind to establish security. fear guides one away from that which experience/memory suggests is dangerous. so to be free of fear one must then be free of the process by which it is created. the process of experience. and without experience, without the ideation of safe and dangerous outcomes, there is no intelligent movement through environment. so to be free of fear, is to be free of experience and ideation. one can close one's eyes and be free of it all for a few hours, but to eat, to shit, to fuck, to enjoy the many fruits of existence there must be fear. are we together so far sir?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-04-28 22:51:57
  • You are all spooks and I alone am best
  • Speaking of there being fear necessary to shit, with an inflammed bowel the fear of excreting in an appropriate location and doing so in time is significantly increased, as the urgency of the shit is also increased.

    Are we in agreement that all processes are those of experience?
  • @cosmeffect,

    is it possible that the inflamed bowel, and the fear/anxiety related to the inflamed bowel, create an ever worsening and self sustaining fear/anxiety/inflammation perpetuation? in the speaker's experience, the mind/gut connection is absurdly strong. of course, there are actual physical issues alongside this. but mind/fear can certainly perpetuate one's symptoms. 

    now we cannot be without fear. we cannot be without inflammation. but can we discern the entire movement, and approach life with a comprehensive understanding of ourselves? 

    certain physical processes, environmental processes, certainly exist outside of human experience. an unwitnessed wave in the ocean? the wind in the stratosphere? the movement of subatomic particles? 
     
  • @visceral,

    the speaker is not from african descent sir. the 'you' is a transient, ever shifting, process of self approximation that will eventually wither and become less 'the best' than the current pool of experience may suggest. we are equals sir. in that we both swim in the same basin of potential experience. we reverberate, approximate, then build or desecrate. but fundamentally, we are the reverberation of experience through time. sir, that will not win the BIG BIG MONEY!
  • Are physical processes not occasions of experience? Outside of human experience, but not outside of natural experience? That all natural occasions of experience have both an objectified, physical pole or aspect of experience and a concrescing, mental pole or aspect that can, when it reaches it's satisfaction, has a vector feeling, what could be called a thought? 

    The process of human experience not being divorced from the natural processing of occasions of experience, but as a habituated patterning of occasions of experience, some of which' mental pole or aspect being in the mode of presentational immediacy, subjective conscious awareness, some of which have other concrescing vectorized feelings that, when satisfied, lead to other mental properties of human experience (perception, cognition, emotion, intention, etc.

    The physical pole or aspect also being an occasional experience depends on the information prehended as it becomes objectified during it's process of concrescence. The experience may or may not itself have presentational immediacy, but it still experiences the once concrescing, satisfied vector feelings of any one occasion's prehended information.

    The self being a structured nexus of occasions of experience, some objectified, some with in the mode of presentational immediacy making up the mind/body. But the mind/body is constantly in a state of concrescence, always prehending novitic information from the infinitude of occasions either as part of the structured nexus, or from elsewhere within the metaprocess, not a part of the patterned structure. The whole movement of mind/body/environment could be considered as a whole nexus itself, which may also have a structured patterning to it, but if it does, it's a very intricately weaving pattern.
  • @cosmeffect, 

    Sir, can there be experience without an experiencer?
  • There can be an experience without presentational immediacy, but even without presentational immediacy, there may still be an experience in the mental pole or aspect of any given occasion. The mode of presentational immediacy of any observer is made up of the satisfied vector feelings, thoughts, of any occasion of experience.
  • @cosmeffect, 

    What is presentational immediacy sir?
  • The experiencer could even be an objectified physical object, with or without presentational immediacy, as it has a vectorized feeling arising out of the process of concrescence.
  • Presentational immediacy could also be referred to as a fundamental conscious awareness. The ability to prehend information as phenomenally, qualitatively.
  • @cosmeffect, 

    Now we must keep this going for later exemplification, so sir, are you to suggest matter inherently has consciousness?
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @cosmeffect, 

    Now we must keep this going for later exemplification, so sir, are you to suggest matter inherently has consciousness?



    Not consciousness per se, but the experience of a vectorized feeling, which can be in the mode of presentational immediacy of prehended information.
    What @DinduNuffin had referred to as thought, could also be considered as a a vector feeling. Vector feelings being more fundamental than consciousness. 

    Vector feelings making up both primary conscious awareness and the content of that awareness. Both emerging from, possibly, a single process from concretion to satisfaction of the prehended information of any given occasion.
  • @cosmeffect,

    what is a vectorized feeling?
  • A vector or vectorized feeling is the satisfaction, what emerges after the process of concrescence, of any one given occasion of experience. What I haven't quite discerned yet is how a vector feeling, a part of mental pole or aspect, relates to the objectification of that occasion of experience, it's physical pole or aspect. I wonder if both, being a part of a a single occasion, are complementary (both needed to exhaustively explain an occasion, but are both necessary to explain a given occasion).
  • @cosmeffect, 

    In what sense do you use the term vector? Show yourself to the speaker and the speaker will discern.
  • Vector meaning, as I understand, having a magnitude and direction.
  • @cosmeffect,

    so we have then a feeling, with a magnitude and direction. now before we move on, what is a feeling? to the speaker a feeling is thought, sensation. is that it sir?
  • @cosmeffect,

    so a thought of satisfaction occurs after the process of concrescence. could you give a practical example of the movement of concrescence?
  • Not necessarily a thought of satisfaction, but a thought emerges from the concrescence, prehension and integration of information. After an occasion has concresced fully, the outcome is called the occasion's satisfaction, which in the mental pole or aspect, has a vector feeling, or thought.
  • @cosmeffect, 

    Would you give a practical example sir?
  • An example of a process of concrescence, the prehension and integration of information, would the experience of sense datum in a physical and/or mental occasion.

    In the mental pole of an occasion, the concrescent process of the experience of datum prehended includes the conceptual feelings of sensation, perception, emotion, etc.

    In the physical pole of an occasion, the concrescent process of the experience of datum prehended includes the physical feelings of charge, mass, spin, etc.

    The movement of concrescence to a satfisfied feeling is through the lure or strange attractor of the feeling. As an occasion is lured towards a certain feeling, the creative advance of novelty is an attractive force to the resultant satisfied feeling.
    Post edited by CosmEffect at 2016-05-01 17:19:03
  • @cosmeffect, 

    Are you suggesting that a given event, has two aspects, the physical, relating to its material substance, and the mental relating to a perceivers interpretation, and the process of congrescence is the melding of the two?
  • . May 1 QuoteFlag
    Hrair
    But the mental substance is purely and naturally physical also. Correct?
  • "Thus the 'production of novel togetherness' is the ultimate notion embodied in the term 'concrescence'. These ultimate notions of 'production of novelty' and of 'concrete togetherness' an inexplicable either in terms of higher universals or in terms of the components participating in the concrescence. The analysis of the components abstracts from the concrescence."

    "In a process of concrescence, there is a succession of phases in which new prehensions arise by integration of prehensions in antecedent phases. In these integrations, 'feelings' contribute their 'subjective forms' and their 'data' to the formation of novel integral prehensions; but 'negative prehensions' contribute only their subjective forms. The process continues till all prehensions are components in the determinate integral satisfaction."

    Within the integral satisfaction of an occasion is the data and subjective forms, of preceding actual occasions, prehended by a contemporary occasion. Each occasion, having a mental and physical aspect, will have a novel integral satisfaction of mental and physical data prehended. 

    Concrescence could be considered as the process of the multitude of prehended data and subjective forms coming to a single integrated satisfied feeling of a an occasion.
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @visceral,

    the speaker is not from african descent sir. the 'you' is a transient, ever shifting, process of self approximation that will eventually wither and become less 'the best' than the current pool of experience may suggest. we are equals sir. in that we both swim in the same basin of potential experience. we reverberate, approximate, then build or desecrate. but fundamentally, we are the reverberation of experience through time. sir, that will not win the BIG BIG MONEY!



    "spooks" was not a racial comment

    and so far as I can tell, you occur only in my head
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @cosmeffect, 

    Sir, can there be experience without an experiencer?



    the experiencer is also an experience
  • @19232 One view, the one I'm trying to espouse, is that the mental and physical are both reducible to an ontoglogically monistic 'substance' or actuality. In Process and Reality that 'substance' is a process with multiple terms for it: an occasion of experience; actual occasion; actual entity. Any one occasion has complementary aspects of both mental and physical qualities, but it depends on the data prehended by an occasion that one or the other or both qualities appear in actuality.
  • @visceral,

    One might be inclined to assume the speaker is a figment of ones imagination, but assumptions are limiting sir, so let's instead discern. What prevents you from forming a conclusion about the tangibility of the speaker sir?
  • @19232, 

    Mental substance is indeed physical. The divide is purely conceptual. And conceptual is mechanical.
  • @cosmeffect, 

    Does congrescence occur outside of that which is conceptual sir?
  • Concrescence can occur physically as well. An occasion can go through an objectification phase of concrescence, where the prehensions can coalesce into a nexus of occasions with a physical nature and can make up any of the fundamental particles, fields or any other physical substance.
  • @cosmeffect,

    But purely physical? The very movement of objectification implies perception. It implies an observer, understanding, interpretation. To exist outside of mentation excludes all thought, excludes the concept of objectification, excludes the bifurcation of mental and physical. 

    So there is only the process of actuality, the concrescence of physical and physical is conceptual. Yes?
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-05-01 22:17:43
  • Yes.(?)
  • . May 1 QuoteFlag
    Hrair
    Ok so then do we all agree that we are all one creation of pure potentiality that is so unimaginably powerful that it can create such things as a "physicality" a "mentality" and the mechanics of movement through void, which in turn is only an fragment of an aspect that can be comprehended partially by itself incarnate as a "being"? lol
    Now I get why its a cosmic joke
  • @cosmeffect, 

    So we see concresence, exists only after the conceptual bifurcation between mental and physical as concresence of physical and physical is merely process, and does not exist outside the mind of the observer. Said differently, it will exist only through relationship with the observer. Now, if we may return to the initial question, what fundamentally perpetuates the process of the I? Not the process of experience, or the process of sensation, or even the process of consideration, but the very conceptualization of the transient I process so many of us accept as the static I?
  • DinduNuffin said:

    @visceral,

    One might be inclined to assume the speaker is a figment of ones imagination, but assumptions are limiting sir, so let's instead discern. What prevents you from forming a conclusion about the tangibility of the speaker sir?



    I said so far as I can tell. There's no assumption there. I'm just leaving the possibility that new information may change my perceptions at a later time.

    I'm not questioning your tangibility, I'm noting it's existence is equivalent to anything else's tangibility. As I am not aware of anything that has ever existed without my existence I am inclined to treat you as one incarnation of some corner of my mind or another. 

    That may seem vague, but that is only because I dont bother much with labels and usually let things organize themselves as they will.
    Post edited by Visceral at 2016-05-01 22:44:10
  • @19232, 

    Indeed. Relationship sir. 
     
    Post edited by DinduNuffin at 2016-05-01 22:47:49
  • @visceral, 

    Is not treating the speaker as one incarnation in some corner of ones mind the very application of a label? The label that the speaker should be treated as a such and such? Could we not meet each other here in discussion completely free of preconception? Free of imagery? Is not viewing the speaker in a certain light not the very application of the static I which we have come to discern is, in actuality, transient?