Jump to content



Welcome to KnowledgeSutra - Dear Guest , Please Register here to get Your own website. - Ask a Question / Express Opinion / Reply w/o Sign-Up!
Photo
- - - - -

Some Questions And Krishnamurti


18 replies to this topic

#1 wuglr

wuglr

    Newbie [Level 1]

  • Kontributors
  • Pip
  • 14 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
  • myCENT:64.48

Posted 29 May 2009 - 09:50 AM

Here are some questions which I find very important in the understanding of spirituality and belief. They are observational, please do discuss or answer them if you like.

What is success and why is it important?
Why do belief structures and ideologies share a process, a method or some measurement for success?

What is time and where does it come from?
Why do belief structures and ideologies share common linear scales? (Permanency, periods of effort/ commitment, prophecies, celebrations etc)

What is conflict and why is it disliked?
Why does belief (any belief) and ideology (/the ideal) breed conflict? (War, condemnation, discrimination, prejudice, guilt, fear, envy, hate etc.)


To accompany them (and to the same effect), here is a chapter of Jiddu Krishnamurti's The First and Last Freedom (plain text):
http://www.freeweb.h...troduction.html

I'm very interested in what people think of both the chapter and questions. Please feel free to say whatever you like.

p&l
  • 0

#2 webishqiptar

webishqiptar

    Super Member

  • Kontributors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:shkoder
  • myCENT:20.21

Posted 29 May 2009 - 11:25 PM

Success is some kind of aim in life, so it gives aim to your life. Belief structures share a method for success because, religion believes that Creator knows everything, and so the method and measure for that is true and the right path.

Time is something used to create order in our lifes. But time is age too. That is why beliefs use predictions because different ages come with different structures and civilizations.

I think that conflict, is the real answer or reaction of our consciousness toward outside impulses. And I believe this is normal to my opinion as a human being. Not all religions pray for breeding wars, but in general religion tent to be right, and to pray peace. But religion tent to help the person feel good, and this is done by acting good, which is the opposite of bad(war, condemnation, discrimination.etc)
  • 0

#3 truefusion

truefusion

    Coincidence is non-sequitur, therefore everything has a reason for its existence (except if they are eternal).

  • [MODERATOR]
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,216 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:No, not there. Not there either. Yes, you'll never figure it out.
  • Interests:God, Christianity.
  • myCENT:86.16

Posted 30 May 2009 - 12:42 AM

What is success and why is it important?

"Success" is generally a relative term; likewise, its importance is generally relative. For that reason, though your question may seek an objective answer, it is bound to receive a subjective one. But i will say, concerning the last part of the question, that success is "important" because it often follows with a desirable implication—because it sounds like something nice to have, but not necessarily because it is nice to have.

Why do belief structures and ideologies share a process, a method or some measurement for success?

This question implies that there is already a definition for the word "success" and that it is subjective to the religion or "belief structure." The question also seems to be forcing a belief through implication that all "belief structures and ideologies" are practically the same. While that may be true for many, it is not true for all. "Success" may or may not exist in the religion. In fact, "success" is generally limited to this world, therefore being irrelevant for those that worry about the hereafter, therefore not existing in the religion or "belief structure." But in an attempt to answer the question anyway, trial and error could be the reason why. Many times is it because one copied the idea from the other and tried to add to it. You see this in the business world many times. They tend to call this an "education" or "experience." For that reason, it need not be limited to "belief structures or ideologies."

What is time and where does it come from?

Time is a measurement of length between one point to another. Time came from observing the sun and the moon. Since then, many theories has popped up concerning time.

Why do belief structures and ideologies share common linear scales? (Permanency, periods of effort/ commitment, prophecies, celebrations etc)

The question is similar to asking, "Why do humans do what they do?" but perhaps with some exception to prophecies. Logic actually plays a role in many of these things. Logic, here, can be guided by faith or vice versa. For example, "How do i go about in doing or achieving something?" Or, "If something could not always exist, then how did it come into existence?" Or, "What do i do next?" For that reason, it need not be limited to "belief structures and ideologies"—as it is common in practically every field you look in.

What is conflict and why is it disliked?

Conflict is not necessarily disliked. By asking "why is it disliked?" you already assume a definition for the word, therefore somewhat making the first part of your question irrelevant. For that reason, you are limiting what could or would be the answer to the first part of your question. But why something is disliked may depend on the person, whether it be concerning "conflict" or not.

Why does belief (any belief) and ideology (/the ideal) breed conflict? (War, condemnation, discrimination, prejudice, guilt, fear, envy, hate etc.)

Again, your question implies a definition for conflict, for it assumes what the answer to the previous question would be. Indeed, you have provided many examples on what you would call or consider to be "conflict" when that may not be true necessarily. For this reason, the question itself is slightly closed a bit, that is, narrow. For that reason, i see little reason in answering the question. Nevertheless, it is not any belief, but certain beliefs, that is, not all beliefs lead to what you perceive as "conflict."

To accompany them (and to the same effect), here is a chapter of Jiddu Krishnamurti's The First and Last Freedom (plain text):
http://www.freeweb.h...troduction.html

I'm very interested in what people think of both the chapter and questions.

I haven't read the entire thing, but from what i did read, your questions contradict what is written. Though i found a few problems with what i did read, i find referencing the First and Last Freedom slightly inconsistent with your questions. From what i did read, it mentions that finding truths cannot involve personal bias or prejudice when you search for it. However, as we have so seen, your questions are quite limiting to a narrow point of view.
  • 0

#4 wuglr

wuglr

    Newbie [Level 1]

  • Kontributors
  • Pip
  • 14 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
  • myCENT:64.48

Posted 30 May 2009 - 10:52 AM

Hi webishqiptar, hi truefusion. Thankyou for taking the time to reply.

"Success" is generally a relative term; likewise, its importance is generally relative. For that reason, though your question may seek an objective answer, it is bound to receive a subjective one. But i will say, concerning the last part of the question, that success is "important" because it often follows with a desirable implication—because it sounds like something nice to have, but not necessarily because it is nice to have.

In terms of intellectual response (that of 'casual' thought), any question will receive a subjective answer. We answer, and execute authority (high/ low social status), based on our conditioning (memory, position, opinion of subject, individual & ourselves - morals, likes & dislikes, goals, desires etc. Perception)
The question I asked, however, was intended to challenge this, and evoke a non-automated response, or at the least, "deeper" thought.

Is the definition of the word success relative? And is it's importance relative? If we observe instead of speculate, what is seen? Is success a fixation? Where can it be found? Surely it is in every aspect of ones life! Wealth, possession, status, divinity, relationship, pleasure. So success is the object of desire, it is satisfaction. If you were to ask 'so what was the point with the first question?', I'd say to illustrate the human race's obsession with success, satisfaction, gratification and gain.

This question implies that there is already a definition for the word "success" and that it is subjective to the religion or "belief structure." The question also seems to be forcing a belief through implication that all "belief structures and ideologies" are practically the same. While that may be true for many, it is not true for all. "Success" may or may not exist in the religion. In fact, "success" is generally limited to this world, therefore being irrelevant for those that worry about the hereafter, therefore not existing in the religion or "belief structure." But in an attempt to answer the question anyway, trial and error could be the reason why. Many times is it because one copied the idea from the other and tried to add to it. You see this in the business world many times. They tend to call this an "education" or "experience." For that reason, it need not be limited to "belief structures or ideologies."

There is already a definition for success, of course. The merriam-webster online dictionary reads:

1 obsolete : outcome, result
2 a: degree or measure of succeeding b: favorable or desired outcome; also : the attainment of wealth, favor, or eminence
3: one that succeeds

I did not say all belief structures are the same. And I agree, they are all different. We can observe that they use different languages, words, names, colours, figures, people, books, clothes, places etc. Obviously, all to varying degrees. Don't all belief structures, however, share several common factors? The main similarity between all faith, and you must agree, is belief in a person, an object or an ideal. Success is also involved in belief. There is always a goal, or something to achieve (through whatever means), in relation to that person, object or ideal.

Is that not success?

Your comment 'it need not be limited to "belief structures or ideologies."' perfectly illustrates exactly the purpose of my second question, which was to further emphasize the importance of success in modern day living, especially its key involvement in religion, belief and spirituality. (An important question here could be, what is the difference between the desire for success, and greed or lust?)


Time is a measurement of length between one point to another. Time came from observing the sun and the moon. Since then, many theories has popped up concerning time.
The question is similar to asking, "Why do humans do what they do?" but perhaps with some exception to prophecies. Logic actually plays a role in many of these things. Logic, here, can be guided by faith or vice versa. For example, "How do i go about in doing or achieving something?" Or, "If something could not always exist, then how did it come into existence?" Or, "What do i do next?" For that reason, it need not be limited to "belief structures and ideologies"—as it is common in practically every field you look in.

Time is a construct or an ideal. It is indeed the result of perception.
Here you also mention Logic, and explain its presence with examples also attributable to Method; the "how" and "what".
As for your comment '"If something could not always exist, then how did it come into existence?"', my questions were not regarding the contents of ideals, but only of their significance.

Why do humans do what they do? Well, it's almost as if we've switched places! That's exactly what these questions are enquiring into. Surely to understand peace, truth, love and freedom, we must understand ourselves? Is this not logic? And sure, it might seem like method too, but only if peace, truth, love and freedom (etc.) are idealized, coveted and seen as a goal.


Conflict is not necessarily disliked. By asking "why is it disliked?" you already assume a definition for the word, therefore somewhat making the first part of your question irrelevant. For that reason, you are limiting what could or would be the answer to the first part of your question. But why something is disliked may depend on the person, whether it be concerning "conflict" or not.

Again, your question implies a definition for conflict, for it assumes what the answer to the previous question would be. Indeed, you have provided many examples on what you would call or consider to be "conflict" when that may not be true necessarily. For this reason, the question itself is slightly closed a bit, that is, narrow. For that reason, i see little reason in answering the question. Nevertheless, it is not any belief, but certain beliefs, that is, not all beliefs lead to what you perceive as "conflict."

Firstly. Imagine this. I observed conflict, I observed that it was disliked. I want to know what it is, and why it is disliked. That is not suggestive, it does not imply, and, as far as I can understand, it is not narrow. (Have you answered the questions? Do I now know any better what conflict is and why is is disliked because of your answer? Do you?)

Perhaps I shall answer:

Conflict in actual existence in one persons life, may indeed not equal the experienced conflict of another. It is relative in terms of subject, but not in terms of affliction. And again, as with success, the word already has a definition:

1: fight, battle, war <an armed conflict>
2 a: competitive or opposing action of incompatibles : antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons) b: mental struggle resulting from incompatible or opposing needs, drives, wishes, or external or internal demands
3: the opposition of persons or forces that gives rise to the dramatic action in a drama or fiction

In other words, conflict equates to loss and pain. It is fundamentally disliked, by definition. Pain for person A may be pleasure for person B. However, person B will also experience pain, be it different to or similar to the experience of others.

Now, my question was "why is it disliked?". My answer would be, because conflict causes pain, and pain is disliked. If you would like to discuss why pain is disliked, please do!

We have established what conflict is, correct? Please say if you disagree.
Let's look at the statement 'belief breeds conflict'.
We should first answer the question 'what is belief?' Belief is a set of morals and values in relation to a person, object and/or ideal. For example: Jesus is THE saviour of man, THE son of God, he HAS died for the sins of the human race, and NO METHOD save accepting him and repenting will ensure ones entrance into heaven.
Does this belief cause conflict? (Not because of names, places or people etc. but because of the simple fact that it is a belief. If offended, replace Jesus and subsequent context with that of Muhammad or Krishna etc.) If we added an alternate example, which dictated another person, object or ideal to equal Jesus, the two beliefs, on paper, would be contradictory, or there would be conflict between them. We see this conflict in life all the time.
My friend for example, is a follower of Jesus. He might believe very strongly, 'NO METHOD save accepting him and repenting will ensure ones entrance into heaven.' My friend sees me, with a belief (the specifics are irrelevant) contradictory to his. My friend may love me, and feel concerned for my well-being. 'Tom shall go to hell!' he may think. This is emotional conflict; my friend will feel conflicted as he is unsure whether to oppose or oppress his belief over mine, even tho he very much wants the best for me. He has two options here; to suppress his desire, or to allow it to oppress my belief. Both options (suppression and oppression), obviously, would cause more conflict.
The next 'level' is physical or verbal. This is, quite simply, where action is taken in emphasis of or in resistance to belief (thought). The same (thought) process as before, but resulting in things such as prejudice, discrimination, condemnation, violence and war (for each of these, think ANY kind). This world is ridden with these things, and it is because of belief, because of thought. Each person desires success, each person seeks it, and the result is conflict.


I haven't read the entire thing, but from what i did read, your questions contradict what is written. Though i found a few problems with what i did read, i find referencing the First and Last Freedom slightly inconsistent with your questions. From what i did read, it mentions that finding truths cannot involve personal bias or prejudice when you search for it. However, as we have so seen, your questions are quite limiting to a narrow point of view.

In what way do the questions contradict what is written? They are questions. How can a question contradict? If, however, you are referring to their implications, then I am sorry, but these were formed in your mind. They are nothing to do with the the questions.

The problems you found are also yours (based on your conditioning), and they do not validate or discredit. It is a prime example of the conflict (problems) conditioning (belief, personal bias or prejudice) creates.

Krishnamurti says that truth cannot be found. It cannot be sought. It cannot be gained. It is not a reward, and cannot be measured in terms of success (or at all). Truth 'exists' in the absence of thought, as thought breeds conflict - a state in which peace, love and truth cannot exist.
  • 0

#5 truefusion

truefusion

    Coincidence is non-sequitur, therefore everything has a reason for its existence (except if they are eternal).

  • [MODERATOR]
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,216 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:No, not there. Not there either. Yes, you'll never figure it out.
  • Interests:God, Christianity.
  • myCENT:86.16

Posted 30 May 2009 - 06:04 PM

In terms of intellectual response (that of 'casual' thought), any question will receive a subjective answer. We answer, and execute authority (high/ low social status), based on our conditioning (memory, position, opinion of subject, individual & ourselves - morals, likes & dislikes, goals, desires etc. Perception)
The question I asked, however, was intended to challenge this, and evoke a non-automated response, or at the least, "deeper" thought.

I feel that you are attempting to challenge more than just whether one can only respond subjectively. That is, i receive the impression that you are attempting to challenge what is written in the First and Last Freedom. (In case you are wondering why i get that impression, keep reading.)

Here you also mention Logic, and explain its presence with examples also attributable to Method; the "how" and "what".
As for your comment '"If something could not always exist, then how did it come into existence?"', my questions were not regarding the contents of ideals, but only of their significance.

But is it possible to acknowledge the significance of something you have never perceived through the senses? For that reason, even if your questions were not regarding the contents of ideals, an example need be given anyway to illustrate significance—that is, a form of reference.

Why do humans do what they do? Well, it's almost as if we've switched places! That's exactly what these questions are enquiring into. Surely to understand peace, truth, love and freedom, we must understand ourselves? Is this not logic? And sure, it might seem like method too, but only if peace, truth, love and freedom (etc.) are idealized, coveted and seen as a goal.

Actually, i was hoping to put it in another way, but that was unfortunately the only way i could think of. The reason being that such a question is significantly prone to error, that is, when attempting to answer it.

Firstly. Imagine this. I observed conflict, I observed that it was disliked. I want to know what it is, and why it is disliked. That is not suggestive, it does not imply, and, as far as I can understand, it is not narrow. (Have you answered the questions? Do I now know any better what conflict is and why is is disliked because of your answer? Do you?)

I foresaw how you perceived conflict, hence my response. If you feel i have confused what conflict could be, then i have merely made your choices larger. That is, it is no longer restricted to what you have observed. Indeed, conflict is both desired and not desired. It is usually not desired when it is observable outside of one's self. But, of course, other forms of conflict are desired. To give an example, if you would consider a formal debate on whatever the matter. Or perhaps better put, a position that consists of competition. Who doesn't mind boasting every now and then?

Conflict in actual existence in one persons life, may indeed not equal the experienced conflict of another. It is relative in terms of subject, but not in terms of affliction. And again, as with success, the word already has a definition:
In other words, conflict equates to loss and pain. It is fundamentally disliked, by definition. Pain for person A may be pleasure for person B. However, person B will also experience pain, be it different to or similar to the experience of others.

Again, having understood what you perceive as conflict, i bring up again that conflict can actually be desired, if it wasn't already. Interestingly, you imply a position i previously brought up: competition. You do so by mentioning "loss and pain."

Now, my question was "why is it disliked?". My answer would be, because conflict causes pain, and pain is disliked. If you would like to discuss why pain is disliked, please do!

Pain is disliked because it is often a disturbing feeling, regardless of whether or not it is beneficial to the being. Nevertheless, there are people out there who actually enjoy receiving pain.

We have established what conflict is, correct? Please say if you disagree.

I am uncertain at the moment.

Let's look at the statement 'belief breeds conflict'.
We should first answer the question 'what is belief?' Belief is a set of morals and values in relation to a person, object and/or ideal. For example: Jesus is THE saviour of man, THE son of God, he HAS died for the sins of the human race, and NO METHOD save accepting him and repenting will ensure ones entrance into heaven.
Does this belief cause conflict?

That would not be the bringer of conflict. Anything that is in opposition of it would be what causes conflict. I say this not because i happen to be a believer in Christ, but because conflict, as you define it, cannot exist if there is nothing in opposition. Even if i were to include the remainder of your statement, it would still follow that such a belief does not cause conflict, for it came and acted first. The conflict would come from the person that acts in accordance to what was brought to them by the believer in Christ. Indeed, there is no conflict if there is no opposition.

In what way do the questions contradict what is written? They are questions. How can a question contradict? If, however, you are referring to their implications, then I am sorry, but these were formed in your mind. They are nothing to do with the the questions.

Krishnamurti says that truth cannot be found. It cannot be sought. It cannot be gained. It is not a reward, and cannot be measured in terms of success (or at all). Truth 'exists' in the absence of thought, as thought breeds conflict - a state in which peace, love and truth cannot exist.

Interesting way of putting it. However, how can you say that your questions have implications and then say it is merely an idea in my head? To say that they bear implications is to bear the same idea in your head. And why talk about Krishnamurti in a way that gives significance to whoever that is, when that just emphasizes the implications you say are merely an idea of mine? But in so giving Krishnamurti's writings significance, doesn't that answer your question concerning how they contradict your questions? If truth cannot be gained or sought out, why attempt to seek it? If his (assuming it's a he) writings are truth, then would you have not already found truth or at least some form of it? How then can Krishnamurti's words be true, that one cannot gain or seek out truth, if they have so done so? Or shall we suggest that truth is itself an idea, that there is no such thing except how one wishes for it to be? That is, to take up the position of epistemological nihilism. For this reason is why i mentioned earlier that i got the impression that you are trying to challenge more than what you said you were.
  • 0

#6 wuglr

wuglr

    Newbie [Level 1]

  • Kontributors
  • Pip
  • 14 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
  • myCENT:64.48

Posted 30 May 2009 - 08:43 PM

truefusion, thankyou again for taking the time to reply. Let us not quarrel over words anymore.

Will you define these?

Conflict.
Belief.
Success.
Pain.
Ideal.

We must be sure of what we are discussing.

With regards to your response, I shall say one thing in strictest disagreement.

..i receive the impression that you are attempting to challenge what is written in the First and Last Freedom.

I am in no way, shape or form challenging anything I have read of Krishnamurti. I read Krishnamurti each day, and am learning an unfathomable amount from it.
This post is, for me, a result of what Krishnamurti says, or at least, what he questions.

I had no purpose other than going into spirituality when posting this thread. But it quickly morphed to intellectually and verbally proving and disproving, defining and redefining, which is an endless cycle. Anything can be proved or disproved using intellect and opinion.

How about I propose to start this again? But we have to approach it with complete honesty. Are you interested? Perhaps you could reform the questions in a manor which doesn't imply hidden intentions or narrow mindedness to you. Or ask some fresh ones which you would like to go into, or know the answers of. Obviously, by you I mean truefusion or anyone else. The only requirement is to answer through observation, and not through opinion, and to bear in mind the definitions given for above words.

peace & love
  • 0

#7 truefusion

truefusion

    Coincidence is non-sequitur, therefore everything has a reason for its existence (except if they are eternal).

  • [MODERATOR]
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,216 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:No, not there. Not there either. Yes, you'll never figure it out.
  • Interests:God, Christianity.
  • myCENT:86.16

Posted 31 May 2009 - 04:08 AM

Will you define these?

[1] Conflict.
[2] Belief.
[3] Success.
Pain.
[4] Ideal.

  • Receiving opposition.
  • Suggesting truth or falsehood.
  • Belief in accomplishment.
  • An idea placed in high status.
I am unable to provide a definition for pain, because i am unable to provide a definition that would distinguish it from every other feeling. However, for those that i have provided a definition for, in order to provide the best response, i would also have to define "opposition," "truth," "falsehood," "accomplishment," "idea" and perhaps "status."

How about I propose to start this again? But we have to approach it with complete honesty. Are you interested?

You can attempt to start again. But define honesty.

Perhaps you could reform the questions in a manor which doesn't imply hidden intentions or narrow mindedness to you.

Reformation here is to exclude. Merely asking, "What is [this]?" is enough. Anything following it can contain any bias, implications—what have you.
  • 0

#8 wuglr

wuglr

    Newbie [Level 1]

  • Kontributors
  • Pip
  • 14 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
  • myCENT:64.48

Posted 31 May 2009 - 07:55 AM

I shall add to the definition of ideal as I don't agree it has any predefined status. Hitler's actions were based on ideals, he believed Jews should be killed. The importance or given status of an ideal is relative. In this case, its definition could be:

Ideal: a mental image, idea (thought) or concept (idea or set of ideas).

These definitions are not intended to improve our intellectual responses, we are already educated enough to converse in straight forward English. Regardless of how many mistakes we may make, and let this not be a matter of personal correctness or incorrectness, let us go into this and understand. We do not need to debate. Let this not be a competition at any level.

It is true, to completely understand the definitions you gave (and those I have previously given), one would have to specify the meaning of opposition, truth, falsehood, accomplishment, idea and status. However, if we follow this path much more, we may very well end up referencing an entire dictionary! If it is still the case that words used to define need further definition in order to be understood, why don't we define to the finest point we can? The lowest common definitions, perhaps. Definitions that young children could understand. Then we would be able to understand exactly (or almost!) what something is. When observing, we should also look at ourselves as examples in aid of understanding the nature or definition of things.

To start, I'll take conflict. If I were to look at myself I would observe conflict most of the time. From what I see, it is not always receiving opposition. There is opposition, yes, but it does not stem from thought A and toward B, it is simply there, between the two (or three, or four etc.), at any given moment. So, I am conflicted in my thoughts. I am also conflicted with my family, my friends, people, bodies, organisations and governments, and their decisions, actions and words.

Could the definition of ideal be extended to include thought?
If so, thought is, at its lowest level, no more than image, idea and concept (all of which are the response of memory). Therefore, once I have looked a little closer at myself, I see that not just my thoughts, but my ideals are conflicted.

Do you see anything contrary to this? Is this similar or dissimilar to any conflict you experience?
  • 0

#9 truefusion

truefusion

    Coincidence is non-sequitur, therefore everything has a reason for its existence (except if they are eternal).

  • [MODERATOR]
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,216 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:No, not there. Not there either. Yes, you'll never figure it out.
  • Interests:God, Christianity.
  • myCENT:86.16

Posted 31 May 2009 - 05:54 PM

I shall add to the definition of ideal as I don't agree it has any predefined status. Hitler's actions were based on ideals, he believed Jews should be killed. The importance or given status of an ideal is relative. In this case, its definition could be:

Ideal: a mental image, idea (thought) or concept (idea or set of ideas).

My definition for "ideal" included subjective praise (though it may be impossible to find objective praise from humans). To top it off, i made sure that the definition i gave it also encompasses statements like, "This is ideal!" For all the words i tried to give statements that were all encompassing, that is, that would fit in whatever context the words would be used in. For that reason, the Hitler scenario corresponds to the definition i gave.

It is true, to completely understand the definitions you gave (and those I have previously given), one would have to specify the meaning of opposition, truth, falsehood, accomplishment, idea and status. However, if we follow this path much more, we may very well end up referencing an entire dictionary! If it is still the case that words used to define need further definition in order to be understood, why don't we define to the finest point we can? The lowest common definitions, perhaps. Definitions that young children could understand. Then we would be able to understand exactly (or almost!) what something is. When observing, we should also look at ourselves as examples in aid of understanding the nature or definition of things.

I feel that may not be possible if it were to come to the point where the definitions of the words need to be defined (though, technically, we are somewhat already at that point), and that to continue on using these words would only repeat what has already been mentioned.

To start, I'll take conflict. If I were to look at myself I would observe conflict most of the time. From what I see, it is not always receiving opposition. There is opposition, yes, but it does not stem from thought A and toward B, it is simply there, between the two (or three, or four etc.), at any given moment. So, I am conflicted in my thoughts. I am also conflicted with my family, my friends, people, bodies, organisations and governments, and their decisions, actions and words.

I am unable to determine the lowest common definition for "conflict" that you would give it, from your statement. Or was i not to follow from your previous paragraph? Or do you prefer that i assume the definition from your observations that were declared in your previous posts (since you started your statement off from what you observe in yourself)? I get the feeling that i was not to follow from the previous paragraph, even though you decided to take conflict.

Could the definition of ideal be extended to include thought?
If so, thought is, at its lowest level, no more than image, idea and concept (all of which are the response of memory). Therefore, once I have looked a little closer at myself, I see that not just my thoughts, but my ideals are conflicted.

One of the reasons why i had trouble defining "pain" was because certain words implied the other, therefore forming circular reasoning. "Thought," "image," "concept," and "idea" imply each other. You show this fact not only in the parentheses of your definition for "ideal" but also in the "extended" definition for it. For that reason, "thought" is already included, therefore the definition for ideal need not be extended. Nevertheless, since these words imply each other, if by your definition "ideal" means those words, then that is like using the word in its own definition.

Do you see anything contrary to this? Is this similar or dissimilar to any conflict you experience?

I am unsure what to apply "this" to. So i am unable to answer your question(s).
  • 0

#10 wuglr

wuglr

    Newbie [Level 1]

  • Kontributors
  • Pip
  • 14 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
  • myCENT:64.48

Posted 31 May 2009 - 09:11 PM

I do not have the energy to battle with you brother. You have brought us back to the same toing and froing of before. I cannot respond in attempt to understand the subject based on anything you have said. You have not contributed to the thread, you have simply defended yourself, or used theory and intellect to disprove or discredit what I have said. I am not saying these things in spite, they are obvious for anyone to see.

This was not a construct, I was not creating a theory and in need of criticism. As far as I could tell, you agreed to start over with this thread. Your responses so far have shown you unable to leave debate and opposition when outside the field of idealising and theorising. All that was required was to approach this openly, and not apply the bundle of associations, memories, opinions, and judgments that make you right, and me wrong.

Why have you resisted so much?
Is it my tone, or all the mistakes I make?
Can you truly see no way to personally go into this?
Or do you have no interest in it?
Or would you rather refrain from exploring these things so openly on the internet, with no theoretical or intellectual front?




ETA: I have re-read this post a couple times and realised my questions and statements may come across as personal attacks or be found insulting. If this is the case, then I am truly sorry. They are not in any way intended to be.

Edited by wuglr, 31 May 2009 - 09:15 PM.

  • 0

#11 truefusion

truefusion

    Coincidence is non-sequitur, therefore everything has a reason for its existence (except if they are eternal).

  • [MODERATOR]
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,216 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:No, not there. Not there either. Yes, you'll never figure it out.
  • Interests:God, Christianity.
  • myCENT:86.16

Posted 01 June 2009 - 08:24 AM

This was not a construct, I was not creating a theory and in need of criticism. As far as I could tell, you agreed to start over with this thread. Your responses so far have shown you unable to leave debate and opposition when outside the field of idealising and theorising. All that was required was to approach this openly, and not apply the bundle of associations, memories, opinions, and judgments that make you right, and me wrong.

In your previous response, you disagreed with my definition for "ideal" because you found it to be incomplete and you attempted to give an example on why my definition was incomplete. Then you said that course of action wasn't for gaining understanding or to correct any of our statements, and that we should continue for the sake of understanding. But in order to continue, you realized that in order to understand, we would have to start defining the definitions themselves. But to avoid writing out our own dictionaries, you suggested we try to go for things that even little children could understand if it were to come to that. From there you decided to take conflict. This implied to me that you were going to redefine the word. But as you continued it started turning out that such may not be the case, since you alluded to the definition i provided for the word "conflict." However, you then noted that when you look at yourself or thoughts you do not always see opposition, though your thoughts were, nevertheless, in conflict. This i found interesting, so i tried to understand, i tried to apply that to my definition for "conflict" since you implied that you accepted my definition enough to use it as a starting point. But i could not understand, since there wasn't enough information for me to formulate a new definition for "conflict." So i informed you that i could not derive such definition from your statement, and questioned on how i were to do so. And since i was not able to derive a new definition, i felt like i was not supposed to consider what was said previous to that. Perhaps i was supposed to go with my feeling there when you asked me if you could extend "ideal," but at the same time i also felt that your request (question) was separate enough from what was previously mentioned, at least concerning "conflict." So i continued reading, and saw that you mentioned "at its lowest level." This signaled that i should be considering how a little child would perceive this. Having been amazed by the intellects of children plenty of times, i could not assume a child without first giving them a mind that could understand something like the basics of math. So with that, i allowed for the fact that the child could understand what an "image" or "idea" or "thought" would be (since they are really just the same thing). But then you mentioned that not only are your thoughts conflicted but so are your ideals. Assuming the same child, you should be able to see why the child would be confused, because you have then separated thoughts from ideals. I said what i said then to get you to formulate a new definition for "ideals." Then you asked me what i thought about "this" and if i had experienced similar "conflict." At this point, i was more confused for more than one reason. First you included "conflict" in that final question. But since i was unable to formulate a new definition, and since i felt that you were using a definition for conflict that expresses what you said about "conflict," i was at a loss. If i assumed my definition, we would end up right back to your point, where conflict does not always imply opposition. But i tried anyway to apply something to "this." "'This' what?" i said to myself. "'This' is what you said about your thoughts and ideals being conflicted?" "'This' concerning your take on 'conflict'?" I couldn't go any further up your statement, for i felt that was irrelevant to "this." But with what i was left with, i could not respond to, for they were about your experiences. How can i deny what you have experienced? So i responded that i could not answer you. And now we are here.

Why have you resisted so much?

I don't see myself as resisting, so i cannot answer the question.

Or do you have no interest in it?

I would not be posting if i had no interest in it.

Can you truly see no way to personally go into this? [...] Or would you rather refrain from exploring these things so openly on the internet, with no theoretical or intellectual front?

Please excuse my grouping of these two questions if you did not intend for them to be grouped; i feel it is easier to respond to each if they are together. Though this response may displease you, i cannot refrain from engaging these things, that are conceptual in nature and are of the mind itself, with a theoretical or intellectual front if i am to engage this "personally"—that is, in the way i would do so. But you also mentioned that i was not supposed to bring in anything personal, like associations, memories, opinions, et cetera—which i did not know you wanted (even if you feel you have pointed it out to me plenty of times). Apparently, i do not know how to address things openly. If you want, i'll just accept everything you say from now on, regardless of what it may imply, even if it brings down the discussion from constantly hearing from me, "Yes, that is true; you are correct."

ETA: I have re-read this post a couple times and realised my questions and statements may come across as personal attacks or be found insulting. If this is the case, then I am truly sorry. They are not in any way intended to be.

Confused is what i am, not insulted.
  • 0

#12 wuglr

wuglr

    Newbie [Level 1]

  • Kontributors
  • Pip
  • 14 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
  • myCENT:64.48

Posted 01 June 2009 - 10:43 AM

Do you know peace?

Describe it to me. Simply, plainly, as you experience it.
  • 0

#13 truefusion

truefusion

    Coincidence is non-sequitur, therefore everything has a reason for its existence (except if they are eternal).

  • [MODERATOR]
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,216 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:No, not there. Not there either. Yes, you'll never figure it out.
  • Interests:God, Christianity.
  • myCENT:86.16

Posted 01 June 2009 - 08:16 PM

Do you know peace?

Describe it to me. Simply, plainly, as you experience it.

For me it is to be separated from annoyances and worries, and be satisfied (or content) with that.

But from my experiences, i have learned that to have things go entirely my way is non-sense.
  • 0

#14 wuglr

wuglr

    Newbie [Level 1]

  • Kontributors
  • Pip
  • 14 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
  • myCENT:64.48

Posted 01 June 2009 - 10:23 PM

For me it is to be separated from annoyances and worries, and be satisfied (or content) with that.

But from my experiences, i have learned that to have things go entirely my way is non-sense.

Would you say these annoyances and worries stem from, or could also be called, thought?

Krishnamurti said or wrote once, somewhere, that the observer is the observed.

Who or what is the thinker?
Is thought separate from the thinker?

I do not know peace. I know its definition, and I know some of my associations, but I do not know peace; annoyance, worry and thought are 'things' I am yet to be free of.



After reading over, Krishnamurti also says that the only means to something is the thing itself. So a happy end requires a happy means, a violent means can only result in violent end. Effort, routine, method and conforming to a pattern are means only to themselves. Becoming 'free' of something requires freedom as means. He describes means as the first step. The first step towards understanding can only be understanding. The first step toward freedom can only be freedom. This all, obviously, makes the first step the same as the last. Then there is only the thing or end, and no means or method, process or time.
But still I say, "I am 'yet' to be free"..
  • 0

#15 truefusion

truefusion

    Coincidence is non-sequitur, therefore everything has a reason for its existence (except if they are eternal).

  • [MODERATOR]
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,216 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:No, not there. Not there either. Yes, you'll never figure it out.
  • Interests:God, Christianity.
  • myCENT:86.16

Posted 02 June 2009 - 10:52 AM

Would you say these annoyances and worries stem from, or could also be called, thought?

Only if i deny all existence except myself can i say that. But that is to take on an extreme form of idealism, which has shown itself to be fallacious.

After reading over, Krishnamurti also says that the only means to something is the thing itself. So a happy end requires a happy means, a violent means can only result in violent end. Effort, routine, method and conforming to a pattern are means only to themselves. Becoming 'free' of something requires freedom as means. He describes means as the first step. The first step towards understanding can only be understanding. The first step toward freedom can only be freedom. This all, obviously, makes the first step the same as the last. Then there is only the thing or end, and no means or method, process or time.
But still I say, "I am 'yet' to be free"..

If we follow from what i have just finished answering, the reason why you are still not yet free is because you cannot avoid yourself, that is, if everything is merely a thought (idea). If we consider that everything is merely a figment of our own thoughts (ideas), then you are merely a burden onto yourself. However, there is a dilemma when faced with a purely idealistic world: you can not control the "thoughts" (i.e. the objects) around you merely through thought itself, and that these thoughts that were there for you to observe you did not "think up"—they just were. Secondly, if you wanted to make something out of thin air, it is not possible. So, in the end, one is forced to accept a reality, though still perceived by our mind, that exists beyond our own thoughts. It may also be the case that you are not the one doing the thinking for yourself.

But to mention something about obtaining knowledge and understanding: to me, the first step to these things is ignorance with the desire to want knowledge and understanding. It is said that the truth will set you free. But you have to ask yourself, "Set me free from what?"
  • 0



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users