Iris Murdoch and Jiddu Krishnamurti Talk (5/11)

[FloydManFloyd]

when he says 'you don't let a single thought go by without knowing what it is' does this denote an assessment of one's thoughts and experiences? how does this take place when there is no experiencer and one is JUST watching their thoughts and experiences?

[sheriwhispers]

@FloydManFloyd Hmmm "your" Iris ? interesting concept

[FloydManFloyd]

@sheriwhispers You What? Sorry I'm really quite slow lol...

[djmirk]

People need to stop dissin' my Iris Murdoch. She's an intelligent person engaged in dialogue with K. He doesn't seem to mind a bit. This is totally fascinating. Two of my favorite people ever in dialogue!

[pumitaproductions]

why why why why why did krishnamurti try to reclaim the word love?? i know what he's getting at, but it causes so much confusion to the people who already have society's definition of love, which is desire, etc.... he should have just called it.. something else. i dont know. invent a word. not love though, it confuses people who dont know and are trying to understand.

[parisfaith]

i wish she will let the man speak and stop cutting him off, that was deep when he speak about the past n the future,

[LAjimmy323]

This woman is a mind-fu**. And to top it off, her mic level is at 100, and K's is at 25. She needs to stop rambling after every thought.

[zthetha]

I don't think Iris is the right interviewer for this guy who has a great deal of import to say. She seems preoccupied with trying to score points - fencing in a nugatory, academic, patronising fashion. I know she is allegedly bright - but if she is so bright you would have expected her to do a sound check before the interview and replace her fucked mic.

[sheriwhispers]

@zthetha lol well apparently you have never been around great thinkers an how they engage with one another an secondly the mic wasnt her job to sort out . You're trying to fit todays world with in the confines of 1984 then after that you are just a whiner whaaaa whaaa whaaaa

[moveonupcb]

K not realistic - not possible to do attention thing all the time. Maybe if you chose his lifestyle but most don't so not realistic. For starters he doesn't have children and have to worry about feeding them and stop them crying. I know he doesn't like the word ideal but it is an ideal.

[insight1025]

why don't you find out, that's far to quick to say

[moveonupcb]

I have many times , not possible all the time - Maybe if i give up my family and go off to a monastery or something - but i don't want to really as I'm fairly happy. However I enjoy this attention thing from time to time when I have time to relax my mind.

[insight1025]

so what if i say it is possible, not in the sense of time, nor do you have to live in the woods, chant, or do any of the general things people say, the child cant feed themselves you must get them food but does that imply worry? have you ever wondered that maybe effort is not the answer? and that maybe attention cant be at all in the sense of time to time or something temporary, im not just asking so you don't have to answer

[moveonupcb]

If this attention thing is not a time thing then perhaps krishnamurtis phrase thing I have attention all the time is misleading as it infers others don't. Effort and action is often the answer in summoning your energies to do things and survive so I disagree with you that effort is not the answer. Action rather than meditation is more positive if you have to feed a family, although i agree meditation might lead to action.

[MURDOCMULDOON]

@moveonupcb You are not supposed to be attentive all the "time" he has said for example he does it for 5 minutes of the end of every hour ... as a practice or something maybe , maybe he extends this , however I dont find this hard , Eckhartt Tolle (power of now) lets you expirience this pretty easy ... you can observe without a judge in your head you simply be without being anything else than simply being... (all the time is not necesarry) i recommend it i dont know what to call it

[MURDOCMULDOON]

@moveonupcb

You just put a magioc spell on him and said " not realistic" regarding your current limited knowledge and belief due to this subject .

Just becaus this has not ocurred in your life or in "most people`s" lifes does not support the theory that it is "unreal" it is most real sir , and you oughta find this out your self , you say you cant then you cant , you say you can then you can...

if am man say "give up violence" I can say its not realistic i wont do it however it is possible

[melanheart]

There are two kinds of change that K is talking of. One is the change inside the time dimension, in the field of time, as K loves to say. This kind of change is always in time; it is a movement in the time stream.

The other change is the stepping out of time so that the timelessness comes into being. Unfortunately, because only one word "change" is used, it seemingly invites a lot of confusion.

[chezcraz1]

a fantastic way JK enlightened about the projections of mind in general, by this intriguing questioning to iris. he emphasised the difference between the experiencer and the experience, then about various movements of mind, so many limitations of it by virtue of its conditioning or identification! after this, one surely gets the larger picture of individual consciousness beyond thought and mind. to get to know, one should differentiate between mental analysis and attention-as he says.

[seekwisdominside]

to "thumayun" - oh dear, are you SERIOUS about "infection of another's view"??? WOW! Smart sister "ellandelachapelle" sums it up quite nicely, actually: The man doesn't listen, doesn't question anymore nor is he able to engage in a dialogue, probably never was. That's why his teaching is so faulty, lacking in TRUE INSIGHT (oh, yes, dear) and full of himself, while behaving most unbecoming for any public figure that claims to know what it is all about... Please question, ponder and look inside.

[Roubiere]

I know what you're referring to. I've watched Krishnamurti talk with others and he has a peculiarly detached quality.

There are reasons for this. First, he thinks analysis is inimical to his program, as it were. Second is his individualism: I've seen videos where he tells the people he's lecturing not to listen to him, not to treat him as a guru.

Speaking of gurus, it probably doesn't help that he grew up in the midst of a cult that thought he was the Messiah(!).

[Depressionsbehandlin]

He does not have own teachings. He is only questioning the ideas of interlocutor in order move forward in this conversation. It is easy to see that Iris Murdoch is not willing to go beyond what is well known to her.

[ellandelachapelle]

Now I know! He doesn't want a dialogue but she does! (she sort of leans back at one point and lets him do the talking. She just says "go on!") Very wise behaviour. If she listens to HIM - that is hears him out - he may start listening to HER! (up till now he has been too filled with his OWN ideas.) If you already "know" the truth you can't really take in the other! (her openness is enviable. Something to learn from.)(haha yes I envy her!)

[fhumayun]

Yes, K was always wary of receiving the infection of another's view (which he never trusted).. so he didn't really want a dialogue in the traditional sense. I think he just wanted to share his own manners/relationships to the core of his own being. And I wouldn't call that being full of one's ideas, but rather rich with insight. Take it or leave it. To each their own!

[Jangaboo]

SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET