|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 20, 2023 14:50:12 GMT -5
Read my post above (reply to you). The same goes for Michael Jordan. The same goes for everybody. You know the 15 puzzle? If there were not one open space, nothing could ever happen. Change occurs because of the "empty square". The same goes for Bobby Fischer, and his World Chess Championship, and his going nuts. It all just happened. You can skip to minute 12. Yeah, sorry, but if you're not willing to acknowledge the contradiction then you've lost my interest. 43 years ago I asked J Krishnamurti (I submitted a question, it was selected for him to answer), already knowing the answer, so I cheated a little: What is the relationship of attention to thought? He answered, there is none, which is the correct answer. I since [accidentally] found the video some years ago, pretty cool, I'll try to find it, again. (My question was more extensive. It was actually divided into two video segments (it wasn't, live, he answered all-at-once). It took a lot of his rambling (he sufficiently chastised me: Sir, don't use the Speaker's language, that's how he started, I can hear him now. I was about 60 feet away. At the end he finally got to actually answering my question. The divided question has also been published in 3 different places. (A Krishnamurti Foundation Bulletin, the book Questions and Answers, and another book don't have the title off the top of my head). I'll try to recreate the full question. What is the relationship of attention to thought? . In observing, without the observer, is there an accumulation of energy? Does this energy have a direction? May __ thereabouts, 1980, Ojai, California, the Oak Grove. He answered pretty well.  ...This also partly answers ZD's last question to me, of course I didn't remember the full 12 minute answer.
I found the other question also, I'll post it before I watch it. My recollection is that he moved on to the other question (part), answered at the same time. I'll do a separate post for it...
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 20, 2023 15:03:06 GMT -5
The second ~part~ to my question. I knew my question had to make it past a panel of people-deciding the questions submitted.
In observation, without the observer, is there an accumulation of energy? Does that energy have a direction? (I didn't recall all of it). Haven't looked at the video yet, that's my present recollection. He's not as kind and gentle answering this part. And he wanders away from the question before he gets back to it. May 15, 1980, Questions and Answers, the Oak Grove, Ojai, California. In this video he does read the full question before answering, so my recollection was correct. Watched, so far, only the first two minutes.
|
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 20, 2023 17:41:57 GMT -5
Ineffable, right. Are you implying you are That? I'm just referring to the quote. I see. So not ineffable and not not ineffable. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 21, 2023 16:06:36 GMT -5
Yeah, sorry, but if you're not willing to acknowledge the contradiction then you've lost my interest. 43 years ago I asked J Krishnamurti (I submitted a question, it was selected for him to answer), already knowing the answer, so I cheated a little: What is the relationship of attention to thought? He answered, there is none, which is the correct answer. I since [accidentally] found the video some years ago, pretty cool, I'll try to find it, again. (My question was more extensive. It was actually divided into two video segments (it wasn't, live, he answered all-at-once). It took a lot of his rambling (he sufficiently chastised me: Sir, don't use the Speaker's language, that's how he started, I can hear him now. I was about 60 feet away. At the end he finally got to actually answering my question. The divided question has also been published in 3 different places. (A Krishnamurti Foundation Bulletin, the book Questions and Answers, and another book don't have the title off the top of my head). I'll try to recreate the full question. What is the relationship of attention to thought? . In observing, without the observer, is there an accumulation of energy? Does this energy have a direction? May __ thereabouts, 1980, Ojai, California, the Oak Grove. He answered pretty well. ...This also partly answers ZD's last question to me, of course I didn't remember the full 12 minute answer.
I found the other question also, I'll post it before I watch it. My recollection is that he moved on to the other question (part), answered at the same time. I'll do a separate post for it...
You've told this story before as I recall. On one hand it's pretty cool (in a Kevin Bacon sense, but not only) that you had this interaction with J.K. But, on the other, I'd invite you to re-read If by Kipling.  Your other message and relating this to what I wrote in this sub-thread is somewhat of a puzzle and I just had a busy day dealing with 7 different people across 5 different projects, so it'll have to wait until tomorrow.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 21, 2023 16:40:25 GMT -5
43 years ago I asked J Krishnamurti (I submitted a question, it was selected for him to answer), already knowing the answer, so I cheated a little: What is the relationship of attention to thought? He answered, there is none, which is the correct answer. I since [accidentally] found the video some years ago, pretty cool, I'll try to find it, again. (My question was more extensive. It was actually divided into two video segments (it wasn't, live, he answered all-at-once). It took a lot of his rambling (he sufficiently chastised me: Sir, don't use the Speaker's language, that's how he started, I can hear him now. I was about 60 feet away. At the end he finally got to actually answering my question. The divided question has also been published in 3 different places. (A Krishnamurti Foundation Bulletin, the book Questions and Answers, and another book don't have the title off the top of my head). I'll try to recreate the full question. What is the relationship of attention to thought? . In observing, without the observer, is there an accumulation of energy? Does this energy have a direction? May __ thereabouts, 1980, Ojai, California, the Oak Grove. He answered pretty well. ...This also partly answers ZD's last question to me, of course I didn't remember the full 12 minute answer.
I found the other question also, I'll post it before I watch it. My recollection is that he moved on to the other question (part), answered at the same time. I'll do a separate post for it...
You've told this story before as I recall. On one hand it's pretty cool (in a Kevin Bacon sense, but not only) that you had this interaction with J.K. But, on the other, I'd invite you to re-read If by Kipling. Your other message and relating this to what I wrote in this sub-thread is somewhat of a puzzle and I just had a busy day dealing with 7 different people across 5 different projects, so it'll have to wait until tomorrow. Yea, written about, I don't think I've ever posted the videos before (about 99.9999% sure). David Bohm was at one talk, it was pretty cool just to see him, got within about 20 feet. (Crowd just mulling around, he was in the midst of a group of people around him). No problem, that time just popped into my head as a reply. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 22, 2023 12:31:21 GMT -5
I'd say that's all quite insightful and accurate. You see a contradiction between that and ZD's pointing, and the dialog based on that perception has no end and is just a continuation of a very very long conversation that stretches back eons. You always insist that this fourth man has the free will, and you express quite clearly how the conditioned man who consist of the driver, passenger and rig are simply clockwork puppets. But notice how your appeals to free will are always described in terms of conditions and conditioning. You, are not a machine. You switched in terms of to don't involve. You'll have to re-state to clarify, but there doesn't appear to be a need as this spun out in different sub-threads anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 22, 2023 12:35:34 GMT -5
You've told this story before as I recall. On one hand it's pretty cool (in a Kevin Bacon sense, but not only) that you had this interaction with J.K. But, on the other, I'd invite you to re-read If by Kipling. Your other message and relating this to what I wrote in this sub-thread is somewhat of a puzzle and I just had a busy day dealing with 7 different people across 5 different projects, so it'll have to wait until tomorrow. Yea, written about, I don't think I've ever posted the videos before (about 99.9999% sure). David Bohm was at one talk, it was pretty cool just to see him, got within about 20 feet. (Crowd just mulling around, he was in the midst of a group of people around him). No problem, that time just popped into my head as a reply. Yes, you posted the vid as well. It's ok. It's worth a repeat or a threepeat or even more . Your contradiction is between this, and this. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 22, 2023 15:04:09 GMT -5
You switched in terms of to don't involve. You'll have to re-state to clarify, but there doesn't appear to be a need as this spun out in different sub-threads anyway. You switched exactly those words. My post to sN just now might clarify, on quotes. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 22, 2023 15:08:09 GMT -5
Yea, written about, I don't think I've ever posted the videos before (about 99.9999% sure). David Bohm was at one talk, it was pretty cool just to see him, got within about 20 feet. (Crowd just mulling around, he was in the midst of a group of people around him). No problem, that time just popped into my head as a reply. Yes, you posted the vid as well. It's ok. It's worth a repeat or a threepeat or even more . Your contradiction is between this, and this. No contradiction, two entirely different contexts. Michael Jordan nor Chuang Tzu are trying to make a mirror out of practice and achieving skill. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 24, 2023 6:55:42 GMT -5
Yes, you posted the vid as well. It's ok. It's worth a repeat or a threepeat or even more . Your contradiction is between this, and this. No contradiction, two entirely different contexts. Michael Jordan nor Chuang Tzu are trying to make a mirror out of practice and achieving skill. So you can distinguish between the contexts, that's good. Jordan's practice makes perfect, but (as I already wrote), Chuang Tzu's practice cannot perfect "what" is already perfect. The contradiction is that you'd refute acausality by referring to Jordan. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 24, 2023 7:00:17 GMT -5
You'll have to re-state to clarify, but there doesn't appear to be a need as this spun out in different sub-threads anyway. You switched exactly those words. My post to sN just now might clarify, on quotes. Hey, I'm always up for a WIBIGO about the words on the page.  I wrote " in terms of" and that was my expression, not based on anyone else's writing. It wasn't derivative, it was my own observation of what you've expressed in past. (Merry Christmas) |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 24, 2023 10:27:49 GMT -5
You switched exactly those words. My post to sN just now might clarify, on quotes. Hey, I'm always up for a WIBIGO about the words on the page. I wrote " in terms of" and that was my expression, not based on anyone else's writing. It wasn't derivative, it was my own observation of what you've expressed in past. (Merry Christmas) I was just pointing out 'in terms of' does not equal 'doesn't involve'. (MC) likewise. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 24, 2023 10:44:46 GMT -5
No contradiction, two entirely different contexts. Michael Jordan nor Chuang Tzu are trying to make a mirror out of practice and achieving skill. So you can distinguish between the contexts, that's good. Jordan's practice makes perfect, but (as I already wrote), Chuang Tzu's practice cannot perfect "what" is already perfect. The contradiction is that you'd refute acausality by referring to Jordan. I'm 100% sure Chuang Tzu would agree. I'm very loose with words, sometimes, I'm a forest person. I can wholly affirm and attest to, "God" probably puts ~tree~ people and ~forest~ people together, seems God has a sense of humor. (My sister is a tree person, she's a word lawyer. She can pick-out the one tree that doesn't fit in my forest. A separate issue, I threw a chair across the floor once because she said I said something I most definitely didn't say, she wouldn't let it go, I wouldn't let it go. After that I had to leave to cool off, a couple of hours. That was five years ago, we haven't talked about that since...because she will still be 100% sure I said what I didn't say). |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 24, 2023 11:24:55 GMT -5
Hey, I'm always up for a WIBIGO about the words on the page. I wrote " in terms of" and that was my expression, not based on anyone else's writing. It wasn't derivative, it was my own observation of what you've expressed in past. (Merry Christmas) . (MC) likewise. But that was completely non-sequitar to what I wrote.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 24, 2023 11:29:18 GMT -5
So you can distinguish between the contexts, that's good. Jordan's practice makes perfect, but (as I already wrote), Chuang Tzu's practice cannot perfect "what" is already perfect. The contradiction is that you'd refute acausality by referring to Jordan. I'm 100% sure Chuang Tzu would agree. I'm very loose with words, sometimes, I'm a forest person. I can wholly affirm and attest to, "God" probably puts ~tree~ people and ~forest~ people together, seems God has a sense of humor. (My sister is a tree person, she's a word lawyer. She can pick-out the one tree that doesn't fit in my forest. A separate issue, I threw a chair across the floor once because she said I said something I most definitely didn't say, she wouldn't let it go, I wouldn't let it go. After that I had to leave to cool off, a couple of hours. That was five years ago, we haven't talked about that since...because she will still be 100% sure I said what I didn't say).  |
|
...This also partly answers ZD's last question to me, of course I didn't remember the full 12 minute answer. 
