i guess you are aware that you have a very abstract take upon things. although you seem to explicitly seemto deny this, by saying that your distinction it's not a theory (and i agree to what you said in this respect), nevertheless what you transmit are mainly abstract meanings.
if you would give basic examples in which those 3 states could be unmistakenly observed, likewise one could show to a kid water,ice and stem, then it would all be clear.
but reading through your posts i could not clearly find the difference between 'the thinker' and 'the self' as two distinct states of counsciousness.
without all these abstract terms,maybe it would be easier if you wouldpoint to particular experiences and feelings that exemplify those states
Quoting: andreidita Fair enough.
Can you observe that the "self" is a curved 'spatiality' of consciousness? In other words, my "self" is over here and your "self" is over there? Can you see that? Can you see that the separation between these two "selves" is a consequence of the 'movement' of self-reflection by your nervous system and my nervous system which localizes my sensations and perceptions to one particular body, which is mine, rather than another; that is, yours?
This body has had experiences over time; sensations and perceptions; memories of those sensation and perceptions; relationships with people; performed certain behaviors rather than others. All of that is consciousness of the "self".
Its mechanisms are the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain at the neurological level as well as the psychological level; that is, in relation to its creation of images of itself and other images of relationships and understandings of reality.
But, if you observe the consciousness of the "self" carefully, you will see that it is tenaciously attached to images; and those images change quite rapidly. They have no inherent continuity. But, if those images collapse completely, the "self" will collapse into psychosis.
So in comes the consciousness of the 'thinker' to maintain the existence of the 'spatiality' of consciousness called the "self". And that consciousness has its own requirements, demands and characteristics of interaction.
Can the consciousness of the "self" absolutely be sharply differentiated at all times from the consciousness of the 'thinker'? Not really. Their interaction is more along the lines of a Lorenz "butterfly" strange attractor; that is, people usually oscillate very rapidly from one to the other in a seamless movement.
What is the language of the "self"? Emotions, poetry and the lyrics of songs; sensations and perception of the space-time reality; the evidence for the basis of scientific theory.
What is the language of the 'thinker'? Logic, scientific method, time going only in a forward direction etc.
This is a place to start.
But one must actually stand back and observe how these things operate to get the real story.
You are continually moving from one of these dimensions of consciousness to another in relation to events, emotions, and thoughts conveyed by others.
Just one more thing about my "abstract take on things" that has to do with the moving train analogy.
I observe things from the frame of reference of the person in the train station. I see the forward motion of the dropped ball on the moving train as well as the vertical component.
To the person on the train, the forward component of that motion is "abstract".
To me, it is not "abstract" at all. It is something that I actually see.
I've been doing this for some time now, since I picked up Krishnamurti in 1973. I see more and more things that other people consider to be "abstract" if not utterly delusional.
Is it possible for one to learn how to "observe" in such a way?
All I can say is that, at one time, I did not understand what Krishnamurti was saying. Then, after reading a number of his books, it became clear.
So, apparently, it
is possible to learn such a thing.
Michael
