getting back to the centre (((Re true by definition

[Guest guest]

> > Apparently what you *meant* to say was, " No empirical statement

> > is ever true by definition. " Is that right?

>

>

> Yes, it´s right.

>

>

> > If that *is* what you meant, which why you didn't make that

> > clear when I had already made a distinction between

> > grammatical statements and empirical statements, is beyond

> > me.

> >

> > And, if " " No empirical statement is ever true by definition, "

> > *is* what you intended to say, then *that* statement is true

> > by definition.

> >

> >

> > Bill

>

>

>

> And now? what?

> What´s the point of it all?

> Being right or wrong?

> Or do we have some really interesting issues to talk about?

> Where did we start anyway?

>

> Len

>

 

So glad you said that!

I was thinking the same thing.

 

We were talking about the notion of " centre " .

You were saying that there cannot be " conditioning "

without a " centre " . I was disagreeing with that.

 

We don't have to get hung up on that point.

The important point is the matter of the

" imaginary centre " being at the root of confusion.

Is that making sense so far?

 

We have been talking about " conditioning " as

central to the discussion, and yet have we really

defined it? Perhaps it is important to do so.

 

I tend to see conditioning on a very " micro level " .

Reflecting just now, really any movement in consciousness

I regard as due to conditioning. Any observed transition

is due to conditioning, in my view. What else could it

be due to? For any " observed transition " to occur, there

must be some mechanism to make it occur. That is my

assumption, anyhow.

 

That would seem to imply that conditioning is all that

there is. But it is not, really. It is only what is

*observable*. What is observable pertains to phenomena.

But it isn't necessary to assume that phenomena is

all there is.

 

Somehow there is a connection between conditioning

and attention. I'm saying this on the fly, as have never

thought of it this way before. But it seems to me that

the key is in paying *absolute attention* to what

" is observable " . When attention is completely open

-- without a centre -- then the " centre " is no longer

*fed*. That is just a momentary speculation...

 

I just stumbled across the following from David Bohm's

forward to *The Future of Humanity* (which consists

of dialogs between Bohm and Krishnamurti on that topic):

 

...as Krishnamurti points out, psychological time, or

" becoming, " is the very source of the destructive

current that is putting the future of humanity at

risk. To question time in this way, however, is to

question the adequacy of knowledge and thought, as a

means of dealing with this problem. But if knowledge

and thought are not adequate, what is it that is

actually required? This led in turn to the question

of whether mind is limited by the brain of mankind,

with all the knowledge that it has accumulated over

the ages. This knowledge, which now conditions us

deeply, has produced what is, in effect, an

irrational and self-destructive programme in which

the brain seems to be helplessly caught up.

 

If mind is limited by such a state of the brain, then

the future of humanity must be very grim indeed.

Krishnamurti does not, however, regard these

limitations as inevitable. Rather, he emphasizes that

mind is essentially free of the distorting bias that

is inherent in the conditioning of the brain, and

that, through insight arising in proper undirected

attention without a centre, it can change the cells

of the brain and remove the destructive conditioning.

If this is so, then it is crucially important that

there be this kind of attention, and that we give to

this question the same intensity of energy that we

generally give to other activities of life that are

really of vital interest to us.

 

That puts the crux in a nutshell rather nicely, in my

view.

 

I have just a bit to add to that:

 

It has occurred to me recently that the challenge with

paying *complete attention* is that material will come

up that is " uncomfortable " . There is a tendency to move

away from discomfort, it seems, and that tendency must

be overcome. The *magic* is that when discomfort is

attended to deeply and completely... it *changes*. This

is not to say that it goes " poof! " ... but the stalemate

is broken when What Is is truly faced with " unconditional

attention " .

 

 

Bill