Theos-Talk Archives (June 2000 Message tt00018)

Dear Aryel -

Since you've written so much about it.....

Will you give me your operational definition of the 'analytical mind',
it's uses and limits?  (Sorry if I've missed it here).  Not just 'It's
what we use in everyday thought', please?  I mean - does it include the
informing function of the limbic system (midbrain), which would include
our 'feeling' that we are experiencing transrational states of
consciousness, the animal cortex, which would include retrieving memory
but not verbal recall, or are you defining the 'analytical brain' as
that BY WHICH we translate incoming information from ANY source into the
'thought processor' of human language (the upper cortex)?  And how, in
your system, do you differentiate amongst all of the above?  Thanks.

Michele Lidofsky

ASANAT@aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 5/9/00 6:07:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> schuller@prodigy.net writes:
> 
> << > In a message dated 4/3/00 12:50:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>  > schuller@prodigy.net writes:
> 
>  > As I see it now, Krishnamurti in his many expositions applied a very pure,
>  > though somehow 'naive,' phenomenological method in describing the human
>  > condition, the constitution of the emperical ego and the transformative
>  > effect of pre-supposition-less awareness.
> 
>  Aryel wrote [with my remarks]:
> 
>  > Anyone who identifies K unqualifiedly with phenomenlogy (P) has either not
>  > understood at all his work, or has reasons for wanting to thus misrepresent
>  > him.
> 
>  [Before presenting a third alternative of characterizing those who see and
>  investigate similarities between K(rishnamurti) and P(henomenology), it has
> to
>  be pointed out that these
>  'investigators' (Agarwal, Gunturu, myself [as a beginner]) do not identify "K
>  unqualifiedly with
>  phenomenlogy." On the contrary. Gunturu makes a carefull comparisson, and
> points
>  out the subtle similarities and differences between the two, in order to
>  contribute to a better understanding of K. Agarwal uses K's and Sartre's
>  thought to better understand fragmentation and consciousness. >>
> 
> Dear Govert,
> 
> Please note the following:
> You say that "K in his many expositions applied a very pure, though somehow
> "naive," phenomenological method in describing the human condition, the
> constitution of the empirical ego and the transformative effect of
> presuppositionless awareness."
> Your statement says (among other things) that it is proper & correct to
> characterize K as a phenomenologist.  To do that is to state unqualifiedly
> that K WAS a phenomenologist.  This strikes me as being grossly incorrect.  A
> PHENOMENOLOGIST might look at what K was doing, and say to herself:  "Gee,
> that looks a lot like what I try to do & promote."  But to go from that
> "a-ha!" experience to stating unequivocally that K was "a phenomenologist" is
> to take an unwarranted step, even from a logical point of view (I mean, if
> you symbolize it logically, it becomes obvious that the claim is flatly
> false).
> As I suggested in my message, it is eminently more appropriate to go the
> other way.  That is, K points out to me that the analytical mind is wreaking
> havoc with my life.  I listen to that observation.  I look into the dynamics
> of daily life, & I come to a point in which I have an "a-ha!" of my own,
> which might be put into words something like this:
> "By Jove!  Look at what the analytical mind is doing!  I AM creating all
> these images based on my conditioning.  I AM responding to others & to WHAT
> IS as if it all were but a series of images predetermined by that
> conditioning.  The analytical mind IS organizing all of it so that there is
> the (false) impression that "I" am moving from here (wherever "here" is,
> psychologically), to "there."  That is, I see that I am degenerating in
> various ways, & the analytical mind tells me I can "fix" that by "doing X,"
> which will bring "nirvana" or some such result at the end of that tunnel.
> Seeing that -- & much more along those lines -- awareness is no longer swayed
> so easily by the analytical mind.  In that process, there is, among many
> others, the "a-ha!" that what "I" thought was "my" consciousness, is really
> the consciousness of humanity, and that the transformation of that
> consciousness is, in fact, the transformation of the whole field of human
> consciousness.  By Jove!" I say, "what a revolutionarily different way to be
> this is!"
> Now, the moment you begin to analyze that whole process, to put it into more
> or less "neat" categories, the analytical mind is back firmly on the saddle.
> That, precisely, is what phenomenology does.  Please look at yourself, in the
> passage quoted above, doing just that.  As you say, "Gunturu makes a careful
> comparison, and points out the subtle similarities and differences between
> the two, in order to contribute to a better understanding of K."
> Such comparisons can only come from the analytical mind.  They leave our
> lives exactly as they were before making them.  There is no transformation
> here.  Humanity is still going down the toilet, while these otherwise "neat"
> comparisons are being made.  (I hope you don't mind my having made a
> phenomenological description of what is involved in these two very different
> processes!  Remember:  We're just talking here.  We're in the wolf's den, the
> turf of the analytical mind, whenever we use words, whenever we try to
> persuade each other.  This process of talking or writing may have a place.
> But it's not what really matters.)
> A major problem here, as I see it, is that what I perceive to be the grossly
> mistaken assumption is being made, that K was "a philosopher" in the academic
> sense.  That is, it is assumed that K had "a position" just like any other
> thinker whose thought has been conditioned by her upbringing, genes, Kantian
> categories, etc.  That is a gross misrepresentation of K, & only someone who
> deeply misunderstands him, could engage in this little analytical game.
> This will NEVER lead "to a better understanding of K," as you suggest.  Au
> contraire!  The ONLY relevant way of "understanding K" that I am aware of, is
> to ENGAGE in the process of cleaning up one's own house, which is always
> quite in need of such cleaning.  There is no other way, my friend.
> I realize that the analytical mind is all-engrossing, deeply mesmerizing.
> One can think of many reasons why this is so.  In a way, one could say we all
> are sort-of "hard-wired" with conditioning, at many levels.  The analytical
> mind provides "soothing" explanations & palliatives that make it seem as if
> "things are better" when there is an acceptance of its most tempting
> offerings.  Perhaps the analytical mind is, at bottom, what is behind the
> multidimensional human penchant for being drugged, at various levels.  We as
> a species have accepted "religion" even when it became obvious that it was no
> longer delivering the goods.  We have accepted philosophical systems
> (including phenomenology) even though we continue seeing that they need
> revision, eventually to the point of having to put them completely aside --
> and CHOOSING a new one! (didn't we learn ANYTHING from seeing that such
> systems DO NOT WORK, that is, they do not do what they claim they can do?)
> That failing, we use chemicals, drugs, to soothe our pain.
> ALL of those alternatives -- & many others we seek after, in our seemingly
> never-ending quest for escaping from our actual daily responsibility --
> strike me as coming from the analytical mind.  They all follow, like the
> analytical mind, an algorithm, a certain pattern, which always looks
> (suspiciously, I may add) like an argument of two-valued logic:  "If I do X
> (premise), I'll be OK (conclusion)."  Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I'm still
> confused, unable to relate wholesomely with others or with the environment,
> generating conflict -- degenerating.
> You may see some good points in phenomenology if you look at its various
> ever-changing "schools" from what the analytical mind might (erroneously)
> conceive as "the Krishnamurti perspective."  There may some good, TEMPORARY,
> LIMITED use of making such an analysis, for those still mesmerized by the
> drug-like addictions generated by the analytical mind.  But at some point,
> dear Govert, an "a-ha!" into all this comes about, & the wrongful use of the
> analytical mind (that is, using it to inquire into "deeper" matters) is
> dropped.  When that moment comes, it happens with the casualness with which
> one puts in the garbage can a Kleenex one has just used to its maximum
> purpose, not with the pomp & circumstance surrounding the king's death.
> Its epitaph need not be "Rest in Peace."  That's too formal, & gives it far
> more importance & is far more analytical than is required.  Perhaps a more
> proper epitaph for the (improperly used) analytical mind might be something
> like:  "Good riddance!  Boy, what a PEST that was!  Smelled to high heaven,
> too!"
> With much affection,
> Aryel
> 
> -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com
> 
> Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
> teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
> "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.