Intuition and the Wordless Nerve

[Tomas]

I cringe at most everything I write.
I guess I'm teaching myself something....lol
to eventually STFU...

If only those were the words of Alex (or a few of his four sockpuppets).

[Bob Michael]

"Love is not sensation... Love is neither personal nor impersonal; love is a state of being in which sensation as thought is wholly absent." - J. Krishnamurti.

"We purify the emotions through 'great, impersonal love' and affection." (J. Krishnamurti) To which I would add that this must be done in interactive relationship with life and all living creatures everywhere.

Could be wrong but it seems you're trying to be clever or cute here, as do so terribly many non-understanding K-ites, LS. And if so very likely to your own detriment. You might wish to examine Krishnamurti's views on cleverness, the clever-minded.

You have met him personally? How is the atmosphere around him? I simply hope you didn't project your subjective understanding into his teaching.

I've not met him personally, but I saw and heard him speak on two occasions. And he was definitely a living embodiment of love, truth, and compassion. Though not fully so so far as the truth was concerned. A man who could undoubtedly be said to have been in an enlightened state of being. Actually I sensed this long before I saw him in person. With my highly-sensitive, meditative, intuitive, deeply insightful and discerning mind and extraordinarily keenly-feeling senses, I could clearly see this in photos of him and deeply sense it in his writings. Though seeing him in person was even more impressive and convincing.

But as I continued to develop and grow along spiritual lines I came to see definite shortcomings in him. Namely, due to him never having to have lived and suffered in a conventional, self-reliant manner, that he never was able to develop the right approach for the liberation of any his fellows. But again, he wasn't a total failure (as he felt he was), since he was highly instrumental in my own radical transformation and development. Though he never knew of my existence. However, my wife handed him a note inviting him to visit us. But he failed to do so and missed the opportunity to met his one and only true disciple. The disciple who eventually went far beyond the teacher. The "World Teacher" no less!

[Liberty Sea]

Could be wrong but it seems you're trying to be clever or cute here, as do so terribly many non-understanding K-ites, LS. And if so very likely to your own detriment. You might wish to examine Krishnamurti's views on cleverness, the clever-minded.

That is a valid criticism. My youth might have been too clever for wisdom. I was not 'trying', but simply did a habitual move.
I have not read his works as extensively as you, so let me rest my case here. I , however, wouldn't call myself a K-ites. I am a disciple of all and none.

A man who could undoubtedly be said to have been in an enlightened state of being.

I too have that impression about him, though the affair with Rosalind seems to have left me rather doubtful.

But he failed to do so and missed the opportunity to met his one and only true disciple. The disciple who eventually went far beyond the teacher. The "World Teacher" no less!

I look forward to your achievement in the future, World Teacher.

[David Quinn]

A man who could undoubtedly be said to have been in an enlightened state of being.

I too have that impression about him, though the affair with Rosalind seems to have left me rather doubtful.

I would be interested to hear from you what this affair was about, and why it disturbs you.

-

[Liberty Sea]

I too have that impression about him, though the affair with Rosalind seems to have left me rather doubtful.

I would be interested to hear from you what this affair was about, and why it disturbs you.

This is the official information:
http://www.theosophy.com/theos-talk/200806/tt00112.html
Annie Besant herself was aware of this. In fact, Krishnamurti and Rosalind were in a relationship before Rosalind's marriage. It was Annie Besant who married Rosalind to D. Rajagopal to keep Krishnamurti's relationship secret, in an attempt to portray him as a celibate teacher.
Krishnamurti himself didn't preach celibacy, but the fact that he was lying about the affair, the contrast between his public image and his 'casual' one, the dichotomy between his teaching and his life, pose question about his character. I have yet to come across a convincing explanation from his apologists. Some suggested that K was just giving us a chance not to worship him, which doesn't strike me as a necessary method at the cost of three dangerous abortions and a lot of worthless dramas. I am not interested in making moral judgement, but being open about it would have been a far wiser choice and made his teaching more legitimate. We can't blame it entirely on Annie Besant, since K was an adult, a supposedly 'enlightened' one as that, and it was independence that he preached.

Anyway, I decided not to give his personal life much attention. To a certain extent, it is overlook-able. It can be said that he was interested only in how to free the people instead of in being a wise man himself and leading philosophic life. I cannot too harsh toward him, since I might have committed suicide had I not stumbled upon his works once, but I will not hold him in higher esteem than he actually deserves. One of the reasons for his failure is, he preached to the whole world, to anyone who would listen, so his activity was broad, but not deep. He could instead choose a few men of high quality and focus on educating those few, which would probably have produced much better result. You know what the mass is like.

Regardless, make your life your teaching, David.

[Alex T. Jacob]

[The grandiosity of Bob with his self-declared Mission as World Teacher seems to me to reflect rather disturbingly some local Gurus and Mahatmas who have also gotten attracted to these ideals. But, as with Bob, because the prose seems so reasonable, it is perceived as natural. Or to put it another way, to become 'enabled' as some.sort of Great Teacher you will have to serve the role of enabler in respect to someone else's fantasy. How is one to view and categorize this desire to see oneself as some kind of Messiah for the lost masses? The cobbling-together of tendentious philosophies and religious modalities, the ridiculous but very serious games of 'image-management', the teaming-up of one grandiose figure with another for politico-spiritual ends?]

[cousinbasil]

That sounds logical in our 3 dimensional world....but what if someday we discover there's a 4th dimension, etc. ?
Would our 3rd dimensional logic necessarily apply in other dimensions ?

But this has already happened. Einstein has described time as the fourth dimension and has demonstrated that the three spatial dimensions are as intimately and fundamentally bound up with it as they are with each other. He has done so using logic and reason - it is counterintuitive one many levels. In addition, cosmologists now speculate that the number of actual spatial dimensions might be more than three - they do this to satisfy rational necessity. Kunga, what I am trying to make clear is that even the wording of your question here suggests you already grasp this. Think about it - your phrasing is "what if some day we discover..." This discovery necessarily would be the result of reason and logic, for what else could lead to the discovery?

Just because it works here, doesn't mean the same laws would apply if in a different world/universe/dimension.
The brains of other beings could be millions of years evolved compaired to ours.

Logic and rationality are not properties of nor are they conditioned by temporal or spatial circumstances. This is notwithstanding the truthfulness of the second sentence!

What logical now will be obsolete in a million years.

Platonic truths cannot be obsolete at any time as they are not inventions of temporal beings.

When we were cave men, we couldn't imagine flying in a plane would be possible/logical.

True. You do understand that the way man's flight came about is through the gradual application of logic coupled with necessity and many other factors? This sentence alone proves what I am trying to say.

If there is intelligence millions of years ahead of us....we are like cave men to them.

I know we can only live in the present time frame....but I feel a sense of timeless eternity....and man is still
a child....

I understand where you are coming from with this - but the cumulative nature of gathered knowledge does not contradict the means by which it was obtained, through speculation and rational considerations, which are timeless. Not that they are the sole means of self-discovery. But true self-discovery must be amenable to rational reflection in the end.

[Kunga]

discovery necessarily would be the result of reason and logic, for what else could lead to the discovery?

By accident. Looking for one thing, finding something else, unexpectedly. Intuition even plays a part, interwined with logic and reasoning. Intuition stimulates mans capacity towards logical deductions. Without the illogical, logic has no power. How did man discover fire ? First, he must have intuited it can be made. How did he learn to rub two sticks together ? He only witness fire comming from nature (lightning), how long did it take him to put 2x's 2 together ?

Platonic truths cannot be obsolete at any time as they are not inventions of temporal beings.

If you were Enlightened, Platonic truths would be obsolete. Logic would be obsolete. Everything would be obsolete.

[Alex T. Jacob]

Oh really Kunga? You hang a great deal on 'enlightenment'. Honestly, 'quo warranto'? By what authority?

[Kunga]

There's knowing what it is to be Enlightened (knowing your true nature...being ONE with everything, naturally),
everyone is naturally already Enlightened, they just haven't realized it.)

It's not difficult to realize.
Only difficult to maintain that realization continuously.

[Pam Seeback]

It's not difficult to realize.
Only difficult to maintain that realization continuously.

Because of man's sentience, he cannot realize [be the reality of] his oneness with Everything. His sentience, however, makes him intellectually aware of this limitation.

[Bob Michael]

That is a valid criticism. My youth might have been too clever for wisdom. I was not 'trying', but simply did a habitual move. I have not read his works as extensively as you, so let me rest my case here. I , however, wouldn't call myself a K-ite. I am a disciple of all and none.

Good for you, LS, better yet be a conscientious and keenly attentive disciple or student of LIFE.

I too have that impression about him, though the affair with Rosalind seems to have left me rather doubtful.

That was a problem for him, mostly in so far as him not being a totally open and honest man, but why be unduly concerned about the affair? I did meet Rajagopal's second wife, a very pretty, cheerful, and bright-eyed Swiss woman who was considerably younger than him.

I look forward to your achievement in the future, World Teacher.

I was referring to Krishnamurti, who claimed on several occasions that he was the "World Teacher."

"All the tears of the world have produced the World Teacher." (J. K.)

You'll very likely never hear of my teaching efforts as it will be an esoteric adventure, only for a few. The masses at large are not capable of grasping, developing, and living in a fully Free-Spirited manner.

Krishnamurti's ignorance of, or cowardly blindness to, this tragic fact of life, hence his 'give 'em all a drink' approach to the awakening and liberation of others, was also a large part of his undoing. His schools for children were also a totally wrong and failed adventure, and right from the very start. He once said, "People who are without creativity build dead institutions." But the old buzzard wound up doing this very same thing himself. As have many enlightened men.

[Tomas]

Krishnamurti's ignorance of, or cowardly blindness to, this tragic fact of life, hence his 'give 'em all a drink' approach to the awakening and liberation of others, was also a large part of his undoing. His schools for children were also a totally wrong and failed adventure, and right from the very start. He once said, "People who are without creativity build dead institutions." But the old buzzard wound up doing this very same thing himself. As have many enlightened men.

As such, he was never enlightened. A fake. Dime a dozen.

-Bob writes-
"As have many enlightened men."

Get real, dude.

[Jamesh]

I've not seen anything that can’t be looked at from two equally valid and complimentary opposing perspectives.

Did you mean to express this so adamantly? What is the perspective that makes a square circle possible, for example?

Well, if one looks at a square from a sufficiently great distance, then it may appear to be a circle :)

And then there is “Syndiffeonesis”

Syndiffeonesis
Reality is a relation, and every relation is a syndiffeonic relation exhibiting syndiffeonesis or “difference-in-sameness”. Therefore, reality is a syndiffeonic relation. Syndiffeonesis implies that any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same; if their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar. Syndiffeonesis, the most general of all reductive principles, forms the basis of a new view of the relational structure of reality.

So although Circle and Square are logically different, thus opposing to a degree, they have an underlying sameness of being two generic geometrical shapes.

Admittedly when writing that statement I had reservations in using the word “opposing”. It is not quite the right word, as they only oppose to a degree. I meant a tangent viewpoint that makes any absolute statement invalid. There is the line A- B and then there are the points along that line, and to utilise any point requires a different perspective, than the dualistic A-B set of the line. Instead of viewing the line as a dualistic set “horizontally”, as being only the line A-B, I can view it diagonally, and this viewpoint is equally valid. Instead of the line A-B, I get a point X distance from A and Y distance from B, so it has X of one attribute and Y of another opposite.

Using this in a proper example, let’s take the concepts of male and female. I’m male not female, until I try and define and fit that maleness into some form of absolute nature, as when I do I find that No, I’m only male to X degree and female to Y degree. The same applies to the absolutes of emptiness and fullness, when applied to physical reality. Theses “absolutes” are logical impossibilities – no causes can make anything completely full or empty, and if they were to occur then that would mean causation of that thing would have ceased. Is my glass half full (positive viewpoint) or half empty (negative) for that matter.

[cousinbasil]

Using this in a proper example, let’s take the concepts of male and female. I’m male not female, until I try and define and fit that maleness into some form of absolute nature, as when I do I find that No, I’m only male to X degree and female to Y degree.

If you are addressing this to David in particular, I think Weiningerian arguments probably hold less weight with him or Dan than they might with Kevin.

So although Circle and Square are logically different, thus opposing to a degree, they have an underlying sameness of being two generic geometrical shapes

No one is claiming they are "opposing" to any degree. The entirety of the point lies in the first part you said, that they are logically different. They don't even have to be geometrical shapes.

This Syndiffeonesis business is a little fishy to me. It's like saying "a circle and a square are alike in they they are both not blades of grass." Somehow you are then trying to conclude that since there are more such things that they are both not than there are things they both are (like geometrical shapes), then there are more ways they they are the same than different.

[David Quinn]

Using this in a proper example, let’s take the concepts of male and female. I’m male not female, until I try and define and fit that maleness into some form of absolute nature, as when I do I find that No, I’m only male to X degree and female to Y degree.

If you are addressing this to David in particular, I think Weiningerian arguments probably hold less weight with him or Dan than they might with Kevin.

You're right, I don't rate Weininger has highly as Kevin does. But in Weininger's defense, he did state that the absolute male and the absolute female could never exist, that they were merely logical categories. And he also went to great lengths to show how we are all mixtures of male and female to varying degrees - physiologically, chemically, and psychologically.

The same applies to the absolutes of emptiness and fullness, when applied to physical reality. Theses “absolutes” are logical impossibilities – no causes can make anything completely full or empty, and if they were to occur then that would mean causation of that thing would have ceased.

This is a different story, though. Absolute emptiness and absolute fullness, far from being mere logical categories, directly point to the nature of reality - assuming, of course, that the person using these terms understand what they mean. The way you are using them here, James - equating emptiness with non-existence and fullness with existence - is not how I use them.

The solid earth beneath us is as empty as a vacuum. A vacuum is as full as the insides of the human brain.

-

[cousinbasil]

The solid earth beneath us is as empty as a vacuum. A vacuum is as full as the insides of the human brain.

Even though you are using the terms empty and full in a philosophical sense, it is interesting to note that in physical terms as well, the "solid" earth is anything but. Due to atomic structure, the earth is by far mostly empty space...

[Jamesh]

[the earth is by far mostly empty space...]

Nope. It is all empty space, as it is space.

... and the other name for space, its causal name, instead of its effect name, is Time. What makes space seem to not be empty is that space-time twists and overlaps, but it is actually empty of any other thing.

If there were things in space how would they replace the space they occupy? It is not that things, resting somehow magically on top of space, are the cause of space curvature, as science incorrectly states, but rather that the curvature is things. Things are "vanishing points", illusionary effects of spatial relativity. Things only have secondary causality relating to pattern and flow, but are not primary causality (self-caused content).

[cousinbasil]

[the earth is by far mostly empty space...]

Nope. It is all empty space, as it is space.

... and the other name for space, its causal name, instead of its effect name, is Time. What makes space seem to not be empty is that space-time twists and overlaps, but it is actually empty of any other thing.

If there were things in space how would they replace the space they occupy? It is not that things, resting somehow magically on top of space, are the cause of space curvature, as science incorrectly states, but rather that the curvature is things. Things are "vanishing points", illusionary effects of spatial relativity. Things only have secondary causality relating to pattern and flow, but are not primary causality (self-caused content).

Well since the curvature accompanies things (massive things) then one could probably conclude that the curvature is a part of a thing. But then you are in the same territory as one who believes that the EM radiation (light, etc.) coming from the sun is still a part of the sun. Space and time are intimately bound up, but they are not the same in the same way that left and right is not the same as up and down. In other words, if the sun were to vanish in an instant, the earth would maintain its orbit for eight minutes around nothing, until the perturbation in gravity waves could reach it.

[Jamesh]

[Space and time are intimately bound up, but they are not the same in the same way that left and right is not the same as up and down]

Physically, as in terms of what underlies them, then left and right are the same as up and down, though obviously by normal definition they are not. eg. If I had a stretched floppy neck, so my head rested flat on my shoulder, your left and right would be my up and down.

I view time as "preceeding" space. ie that space is not the thing in itself but dependent on being caused. Mind you the sole attribute I assign to time is self-expansion, which cannot be visualised other than as spatial expansion, so your view, the standard Einstein view, of space-time being "intimately bound up" is close enough I suppose. But really I'm talking of time as being a dimensionless causational expansion, where dimensional space is the result via an overlapping effect, not that space is an intrinsic foundation (albeit that space is intrinsic, in the sense that it cannot ever not-exist - time is without beginning, so space also has always been).

[In other words, if the sun were to vanish in an instant, the earth would maintain its orbit for eight minutes around nothing, until the perturbation in gravity waves could reach it]

Too hypothetical, even though the expected result is thought by science to be what you say. It is not possible to remove anything instantly. The sun would need to be removed at faster than the speed of light - which is not possible.
My view is that the speed of light as a maximum applies only between the OUTPUT of one recognisable thing and another, not maximum speed of the underlying eather of self-expansionary time. But, I really do not know what would occur, and as it is not a rational example, then the answer isn't important.

Anyway, I don't wish to comment further on this topic on this thread (and you probably don't either). It's not relevant to the rest of the thread.

[cousinbasil]

True, but then again most of the posts at GF are not relevant to thread they're in.

[Bobo]

A more concrete example would be to take two sets A and B and define them this way. If a thing is in A it is not in B, and if a thing is in B it is not in A. You cannot then logically posit a thing that belongs in both A and B.

Let our thing be the set of all sets that contain themselves and let's put it in A. . .


"He was asking alms of a bad-tempered man, who said, "Yes, if you can persuade me." "If I could have persuaded you," said Diogenes, "I would have persuaded you to hang yourself." "

Why this example always draws debate when it crops up is beyond me. It is merely an example of a logical contradiction. It is not some kind of intellectual challenge.

If absolute truths are that which is true in all worlds. And if you are saying that in this world a square circle is impossible in all worlds, make it clear. It's like saying Absolute (I define) ((square and circle)) now prove me wrong.

To think that any perspective - or any amount of genius or insight - can make a square circle a possibility is delusional if not borderline insane.

Step back because I'm about to do that. With the help of some sloppy language to make things simple.
Between two points there pass only one arc that makes a perfect square circle. This arc is a quarter of a circle (four arcs makes a complete circle). Imagine a world where between between two points there's only arcs of square circles. Can you imagine how, in this world, squares are not circles?

-
Square: A plane figure having four equal sides.
Circle: A plane curve everywhere equidistant from a given fixed point, the center.

[cousinbasil]

If absolute truths are that which is true in all worlds. And if you are saying that in this world a square circle is impossible in all worlds, make it clear. It's like saying Absolute (I define) ((square and circle)) now prove me wrong.

Absolute truths must be true in all possible worlds - I will agree with that. But I am not concerned with all possible worlds - since I cannot have knowledge of all possible worlds (at all possible times.) My point is very simple, and you can make it about absolute truths if you like. The "square circle" has nothing to do with geometry, in my view. It has to do with the definitions of the square and the circle.

It is perhaps best to go a step further to see where the difficulty arises. Because there really can't be disagreement on something so basic.

When you use the term "square circle," one of these words is a noun, the other an adjective (modifier of the noun.) This is where people are getting hung up, I think. What if I reversed them, and spoke instead of a circular square? Right away a picture comes to mind of a square with rounded corners.

But such a thing is neither a circle nor a square!

So to keep in the spirit of how D, D, and K have used the term, make them both nouns. Neither one modifies the other. A circle is a circle; a square is a square; a thing cannot be both a circle and a square since the definitions of these to things are not identical.

cousinbasil: To think that any perspective - or any amount of genius or insight - can make a square circle a possibility is delusional if not borderline insane.
Bobo: Step back because I'm about to do that. With the help of some sloppy language to make things simple.

I think you mean to make things possible.

Between two points there pass only one arc that makes a perfect square circle. This arc is a quarter of a circle (four arcs makes a complete circle). Imagine a world where between between two points there's only arcs of square circles. Can you imagine how, in this world, squares are not circles?

I stepped back! You missed me altogether!

Explain if you will the first sentence here: "Between two points there pass (sic) only one arc that makes a perfect square circle." A perfect square circle? W-w-what? Isn't that the very thing you are trying to demonstrate?

You are saying that in this imaginary world, squares have to be circles. If I am understanding you, that is, and believe me if I am, I should be plenty worried.

This is like postulating a world where 1=2. Why would one (or two!) want to do something like that?

Bobo, abandon the geometrical approach, because it seems to be where your confusion lies. Think definitions they way I described above, and you should see there can be no confusion.

[Bobo]

Platonic truths cannot be obsolete at any time as they are not inventions of temporal beings.
(...)
My point is very simple, and you can make it about absolute truths if you like. The "square circle" has nothing to do with geometry, in my view. It has to do with the definitions of the square and the circle.

Can you have 'complete' definitions of platonic truths? A definition of it wouldn't fail as it would be a copy or something?
Well... I can agree that a square is not a circle. But in the same vein can't we say that there's no man mammal? Or that the ten commandments are absolutely true. Another analogy to the 'hung up' may be saying "this is not a contradiction, and you can't not know or doubt or argue this without making a contradiction".

Explain if you will the first sentence here: "Between two points there pass (sic) only one arc that makes a perfect square circle." A perfect square circle? W-w-what? Isn't that the very thing you are trying to demonstrate?

Between two points there's a quarter of a circle.
Regularly you can divide circle in 2, 3, 4... equal sides. So you can have a circle with four equal sides (a square by definition). Still this is only one of the possibilities of a square being represented. On my example, you can have lines, triangles, but every square should be necessarily be a circle. Four equal sides = Four quarters of a circle. It's like having two different ways of describing the same thing, while without restrictions they would be different. A square circle is A=A.