Specific to the eye 👁‍🗨

 

'Awareness' implies- 'Sensitivity'.
To be Sensitive to the environment, to all the things, most of the things that are happening in the world outside,
and also To be Sensitive, to be aware of what is happening, going on within oneself, within the skin, as it were.

That is,
to be aware not only to nature, to other human beings, to all the beauty of the world, and the political chaos, the Contradictions, the Hypocrisy, all that outwardly,
and also to be aware inwardly one's own problems, Conflicts, desires, misery, confusion and so on.

So, it is a movement of Sensitivity to the outer as well as to the inner.
.
To be sensitive, to be conscious of one's own violence, Double talk, say one thing and think something else.
.
So, we are asking:- if one is not sensitive, You can't be Sensitive, if you say, 'I don't like that', or, 'I do like that'.
This gives me more delight in looking, and that disgusts me.
Because, if one is not capable to observe without any movement of thought, which is like and dislike, condemning, accepting,
how can one observe the extraordinary complexity of one's own existence inwardly?

You understand my question?
.
I am saying, To be 'Aware' implies- To be 'Sensitive', to be conscious of the outer as well as the inner.
If one is not Sensitive to the outer, it becomes much more difficult to be Sensitive to the things that are happening inside the skin, as it were.

.
.

J. Krishnamurti
Saanen, Switzerland,
27 - July - 1977,
Public Discussion - 1

Where I'm not involved : sensation is feedback

 

Christ ⛬

 

edit: my point is. When we know we are all wrong about him, and at the same time that the man he was - knew we were (all wrong). Makes for the greatest hero who ever was. 

- Marco

wonderwall

 

This side of genius : contradictory elements of mind in real time

 "You're not rushing to become anything and you're not haunted by things that you did," he said. "You're haunted by how little of it really mattered in the way you thought it would."

resorting to the title of antihero

 

Marlon Brando, the actor most responsible for bringing Method realism to American movies, spent his later years deflating the mystique around his own profession. His argument was that acting is simply persuasion and concealment, things every person practices daily, and that the craft differs from everyday life only in degree.

===================

June 17th 2026

Brando is right. He found it and then denied it. Played it down. Dumbed down his talent for the spotlight. It's all reverse psychology. Nobody fooled us better. The truth is, Brando was an enigma. One of a kind. To say he meant what he said on terms that made us revere him were only contradictory. A genius. I learned a great deal from him.

- Marco from WInnipeg 🍁

Nobodies scarecrow

Jeff Brademeyer

 The question that increasingly interests me is not whether the self exists, but what kind of reality a self would have to be for the phenomenon of selfhood to be possible.

A stone exists but does not know itself.

A wolf acts but may not become an object to itself.

A computer processes information but does not appear to appropriate its own existence.

Yet human beings seem capable of something unique: they not only experience reality but can turn back upon themselves and recognize themselves as the one having the experience.

I remember a childhood memory as my memory.

I judge a past decision as my decision.

I ask whether the person I have become is the person I wish to become.

This suggests that the self is neither a mere object nor merely a stream of experiences.

Rather, the self seems to be that reality which can become an object to itself without ceasing to be the subject experiencing it.

The distinguishing mark of selfhood therefore appears not to be agency alone, but reflexive participation in one’s own existence.

Viewed this way, the self seems less like a thing and more like a reality that becomes present to itself.

At least for me, this seems to account more adequately for the phenomena of memory, identity, responsibility, and continuity through time than either a purely objectified self or the denial of selfhood altogether. ====================

There is no actual evidence that accounts for the self. I support whatever theory emerges from that. The theory for reality is that there is no evidence for what is normal. Therefore, doesn't exist either. Norms are things that we associate with to behave a certain way. But we all still wear masks to live in a state that the roles we play match with what is communal. My point is I rather focus on what's important to me on a personal level. The answers I seek come from learning through what I experience. The mechanical failure on my part, the me that exists in real time, may have to fail in order to examine what that is. Trial and error? Trial and error supports the advancement of one's self. The better question then becomes: what is it about myself that is true in relation to the self. This is more of metacognition in action. The question of my or the I. My reaction should not be dependant on another persons point of view - ever. So, I live independently of a void into the submission of someone with the same name. How do I know? What if we are plagiarized copies of things we unconsciously absorb in real time. How do I know?

This is how you think about what the self is. That if there is no self - you are lost treating the image of self you think is there. Only it does not manifest over time. The more you move in space and time, the current of your experiences dissolve. My point here is - are you trying to hold something together in your sense of identity. How do you know? The direction you take now was not an different than it was. Tomorrow may be eclipsed by your wish to be someone else. The point is this: that we cannot undo how we got here. It's all relative. There is no escape. The more you realize this, the further off you seem to others. This takes an awareness far beyond measure. Measuring the self means being obsolete.

- Marco

edit: This is a meta narrative that fits with the description of this group. I know my stuff. What comes next if anyone cares to debunk me - better be ready. I am not a scarecrow.

==================

Jeff Brademeyer

Marco, what I find most interesting in your response is the suggestion that what we call the self may simply be a temporary organization of experiences that continually dissolves and reforms over time.

My question is whether the very capacity to recognize those changes already points to something more enduring. Most of us seem to experience ourselves not merely as changing, but as the same “I” undergoing those changes. The child, the adolescent, and the adult may differ dramatically in beliefs, desires, memories, and self-conceptions, yet we still ordinarily say, “That was me.”

Whether that continuity is real or illusory is precisely the kind of question I’m trying to explore.

=================

". . . what I find most interesting in your response is the suggestion that what we call the self may simply be a temporary organization of experiences that continually dissolves and reforms over time."

I find your interpretation thoughtful and impressive. Not only that it makes sense, it computes what I meant.

Where I gather you've still remained unsatisfied?

You continue with searching for an answer, (which is not a critique of you). Only because, I feel the same about truth and learning. That you develop curiosity as a rule. This curiosity is a sophisticated type. The type where "curiosity as a rule" is conceding that their never is an end to truth. The search (curiosity) is the intent behind what is why we do philosophy.

My last paragraph (above) is written in this idea. That as I said in my original response to you, that I tie together herein. Now, I would stick to your original question. That being the self. What is - the self.

My question in the original response I made, is something I referred naming 'normal' or what is 'normal' has no theory to it. That means we can not adhere to what normal is across a spectrum, because we'd be living in a black hole, something of a vacuum, where gravity is a force we understand? (Which physics still hasn't solved.) So my last point is impossible to presume because there is no evidence to equalize our objective either way. So, this gets to my next point. The point I make is this. That if to be normal is based on human understanding for what is rational, or standards in behavior (i.e. psychology) then to what end is the self plausible? My answer.

The answer is simple.

That because their is none. No theory to the self, then no theory to what is. What is normal does not exist in real time. Therefore, we have branched our ideas to intercept for science. Whereas we've created something of empirically gathered (e.g. knowledge) based on what we believe is reason and observation in controlled environments on the basis of language. Rewind: all empirical data must also be rationally tabulated. My point in all this is if we accept conventional methods for which we establish scientifically guided (first) principles. Then why do we not govern the self under the same ideas?

If this makes sense to us, I don't know why it wouldn't?

My conclusion:

If you and I agree on everything as you - yourself and as me - myself have done. Then to my point, what is normal must equate to an intent. If we are of the same intent, from which the self is governed. This follows, that the self if contained in a system of order. Then, this self we both agree is what we se each other in reality. Your question is true. That the self is no different than that the reality you think is me and that I see is yours. I am talking about our identities as we have discussed in response to each other within our discussion group. I think of this as a controlled environment. Which follows that the self if contained is in a system of 'order'. My conclusion follows that only in a system of order that the self is displaced, I am referring to character. And if our constant state of self is to remain neutral in some form that is recognized as the me, or the you, or the I. Then all the self is - is inconclusive to evidence. As in law, legality searches for the self. The self who acted in search of crime, or is it that they acted out of character (i.e. outside the self's 'normal' behavior = the identity that "other's" find immaterial in describing you.) How do you know? It's the scariest thought I can come up with in search of your answer.

- Marco

====================

attention: Jeff Brademeyer

Note: as my dissertation above relates. . . does the self act knowing it moves into a higher state of conscious arousal as what is "normal" - or - does the self stay unconsciously stuck in a comfort zone and help maintain an identity of what I think of as homeostasis.

I'm being serious.

Passage of time in psychological order

 

what is the truth or is not the truth in all things

 

===================================

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Truth of unlearning from collapse

 

The question left is unanswerable. Who does this as a purveyor of truth? Truth if left unmasked. Put the mask on. A total untruth emerges. Morality is therefore incomplete in its best for its least vulnerable. The invulnerability of mankind's thoughts is where we learn. Success is a price for it. We all live in evil if not clearly expressed or exposed as evil is. The outside forces that work in reality. That is what the truth is. Evil is all around us. How do we know? Kural gives a vaguely indiscreet proposition in the face of what is evil. My interpretation of it (if at all accurate) takes skill to produce on a philosophical level. Thriuvalluvar can't just open a pandora's box and expect the paradox I've explained fixes itself.

- Marco 

Heidegger and Being :: the question

 

Source: Facebook posted to
Philosophy Studies

Heidegger and the Question of Being: The Most Fundamental Question Philosophy Has Ever Asked

There is a question so fundamental that philosophy spent two and a half millennia largely forgetting it while busying itself with questions it assumed were more tractable and more urgent. Martin Heidegger identified this forgetting as the defining failure of the entire Western philosophical tradition and made the recovery of the forgotten question the central project of one of the most demanding and most consequential philosophical careers of the twentieth century. The question is simple to state and extraordinarily difficult to think through seriously: what does it mean to be?

Not what things exist. Not how we know what exists. Not what the properties of existing things are. But what is the Being of beings, what is it that makes anything that exists the kind of thing that exists rather than nothing, what is the meaning of Being itself? Heidegger argued that Western philosophy since Plato had systematically confused this question with questions about particular beings, about specific things that exist and their properties and relationships, while forgetting the more fundamental question of Being itself, the question of what existence as such actually is. He called this the ontological difference, the difference between Being and beings, and he regarded its consistent neglect as the source of the deepest confusions in Western thought.

His masterwork Being and Time, published in 1927, approached this question through what he called fundamental ontology, the analysis of the kind of being for whom the question of Being is itself a question, the kind of being for whom its own existence is an issue. He called this being Dasein, meaning being-there, and by it he meant the specifically human mode of existence, the existence of a being that does not simply occur in the world like a stone or a tree but finds itself always already in a world of meaning, always already thrown into a specific historical, cultural, and linguistic situation that it did not choose but within which everything it encounters shows up as already significant and already mattering in specific ways.

Dasein is not a subject confronting a world of objects. It is a being whose very existence is constituted by its being-in-the-world, by the practical engagement with a meaningful context that precedes and makes possible every theoretical reflection on that context. We do not first exist as isolated consciousnesses and then encounter a world. We are always already in a world, always already oriented by care, always already involved with things and with others in ways that give our existence its specific character and its specific possibilities.

What makes Heidegger's analysis so philosophically powerful and so personally demanding is its insistence that the question of Being is not an abstract academic puzzle but the most intimate question available to a conscious human being, because it is ultimately the question of what it means that I exist, here, now, thrown into this specific situation, moving toward a death I cannot escape, with a freedom I cannot surrender and a responsibility I cannot delegate. The forgetting of Being is not merely a philosophical error. It is an existential condition, the condition of a being so absorbed in the practical concerns of everyday life, so caught up in the anonymous expectations of what Heidegger called das Man, the they, that it has lost contact with the question of its own existence as a question, has settled into the comfortable inauthenticity of living as though the meaning of its own being had already been settled by the roles, the routines, and the social expectations that structure its daily life.

The recovery of the question of Being is therefore simultaneously a philosophical and an existential task, the task of a being that is willing to step back from the comfortable absorption of everyday life and confront, with genuine philosophical honesty, what it actually means that it exists at all and what it is going to do with the finite, irreplaceable, always-already-in-progress existence that has been given to it without its consent and that will end without its permission.

No philosopher of the twentieth century asked this question with greater depth or greater seriousness. And no reader who engages Heidegger honestly comes away from the encounter without being permanently changed in their relationship to the most fundamental fact of their existence: that they are, and that this being is a question.

====================

Tom Sawyer

This is a compelling narrative, but once you frame the entire tradition as one that “forgot” the question, you’ve already conceded the point you’re trying to argue. The “question of Being” only becomes fundamental inside a subjectivist ontology where meaning and disclosure replace mind-independent being. Heidegger doesn’t recover a forgotten question - he generates a new one by redefining Being as intelligibility. That’s a theory of meaning, not a universal ontology. And once Being depends on Dasein’s structure, the ontological difference collapses: Being becomes dependent on one particular kind of subject. What you’re calling the “most fundamental question” is actually the most fundamental problem subjectivism creates for itself once it denies access to objective being.

Is there a final question, one question that will answer all questions? | J. Krishnamurti

 Is there a final question, one question that will answer all questions? | J. Krishnamurti

12 June 2016

 

16 July 1944 ~ Krishnamurti

 

12 June 2014

 

12 June 2022

 

12 June 2018