"…live each day, each minute, as completely, as fully, and as newly as possible. And you do that when you love, when your heart is full; you cannot do it with words, with things made by the mind…" K.
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you CAN make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty," who is to be boss, that's all."
There is something that supersedes thought. If this becomes a clear force and not merely another "thought", then thought learns its place, that's all. Right now, it doesn't know its place, it sprawls over everything. It hasn't been shut down profoundly enough to see its limited place. But after something intercedes and puts thought in its place (insight, mind, god, honesty, etc), then thought can function when it's necessary for communication and go quiet when it's not needed. In our culture, thought is used compulsively because the absence of thought is feared. So thought gets misused as a device to keep reality away. It's the misuse of thought that is the problem. So we need what Krishnamurti calls "an ending to time" and an "ending to thought." But he didn't mean that thought has to be erased from existence. I think he meant it much like Humpty Dumpty: "Thought as a Boss" has to end, that's all.
Maybe I should apologize for intruding with this perspective. It's not contradicting what you say. I'm saying that this includes what you're saying. It's an edifice within which the Undead live (or pretend to live). I hear you say thought itself will never evolve out of this edifice. I see it that way too, you're right. I'm only adding a dance step to this ceremony. Not a contradictory one but a complimentary one. I'm adding the note that an intelligence free from thought (proprioception or insight or love, etc. etc., none of those thoughts) can still form images, and ideas (thoughts), but the system of capture is dead. Yes. A complimentary contrast; never an oppositional declaration. A true partnership, because we're only adding, not denying anything in this.
I just read your essay, "the Edifice of Thought." I don't know how I missed it when it came out. I don't recall this. It clarifies your vision beautifully. It's not what I thought you were saying. I thought we were saying something compatible, and we are to a great extent. But there IS a difference in our visions. That makes it interesting. I wonder how we can gently investigate the difference? i think we can. Now that I'm starting to see what you mean in detail, I'm less inclined to poke with "isn't this compatible?" comments. I think we need to really see the differences and appreciate them. Truly appreciate and not mind one bit whether they stay that way. It's fine. But we should see the differences next to one another somehow. Thanks. Sorry about missing it. That's why I was confused. That was well written, very clear.
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you CAN make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty," who is to be boss, that's all."
There is something that supersedes thought. If this becomes a clear force and not merely another "thought", then thought learns its place, that's all. Right now, it doesn't know its place, it sprawls over everything. It hasn't been shut down profoundly enough to see its limited place. But after something intercedes and puts thought in its place (insight, mind, god, honesty, etc), then thought can function when it's necessary for communication and go quiet when it's not needed. In our culture, thought is used compulsively because the absence of thought is feared. So thought gets misused as a device to keep reality away. It's the misuse of thought that is the problem. So we need what Krishnamurti calls "an ending to time" and an "ending to thought." But he didn't mean that thought has to be erased from existence. I think he meant it much like Humpty Dumpty: "Thought as a Boss" has to end, that's all.
Maybe I should apologize for intruding with this perspective. It's not contradicting what you say. I'm saying that this includes what you're saying. It's an edifice within which the Undead live (or pretend to live). I hear you say thought itself will never evolve out of this edifice. I see it that way too, you're right. I'm only adding a dance step to this ceremony. Not a contradictory one but a complimentary one. I'm adding the note that an intelligence free from thought (proprioception or insight or love, etc. etc., none of those thoughts) can still form images, and ideas (thoughts), but the system of capture is dead. Yes. A complimentary contrast; never an oppositional declaration. A true partnership, because we're only adding, not denying anything in this.
I just read your essay, "the Edifice of Thought." I don't know how I missed it when it came out. I don't recall this. It clarifies your vision beautifully. It's not what I thought you were saying. I thought we were saying something compatible, and we are to a great extent. But there IS a difference in our visions. That makes it interesting. I wonder how we can gently investigate the difference? i think we can. Now that I'm starting to see what you mean in detail, I'm less inclined to poke with "isn't this compatible?" comments. I think we need to really see the differences and appreciate them. Truly appreciate and not mind one bit whether they stay that way. It's fine. But we should see the differences next to one another somehow. Thanks. Sorry about missing it. That's why I was confused. That was well written, very clear.