Re: Medzvezdna potovanja
Objavljeno: 23.5.2020 21:42
Zanimiv pogovor iz leta 1983. Iz tedanje sedanjosti, ki govori o prihodnosti, ki je že zgodovina iz današnje perspektive in vendar je še zmeraj govora o prihodnost!
J. Krishnamurti - Brockwood Park 1983 - Conversation 1 with D. Bohm - Is there an action
Krishnamurti (K): I don't think in terms of evolution.
D. Bohm (DB): Yes, I understand that. That is the point that I was expecting we would discuss.
I was expecting we would discuss that.
K: Yes. I don't think there is psychological evolution at all.
DB: Yes. Now, we have discussed this quite often, so I think I understand to some extent what you mean.
But I think the people who are new to this, or viewing this tape, are not going to understand.
K: Yes, we will discuss it, But I want to discuss this whole question, if you will.
Why are we concerned about the future? Or only the whole future is now?
DB: Now, why do you say knowledge is always limited?
K: Because you, as a scientist, you are experimenting, adding, searching, so you are adding,
and after you some other person will add more. So knowledge, which is born of experience, is limited.
K: We are talking about the future of man.
DB: All right, so we are saying that man cannot obtain unlimited knowledge of the psyche.
Is that what you mean?
K: Yes, that is right.
DB: There is always more that is unknown.
K: Yes, there is more and more unknown.
K: So, if once we admit that knowledge is limited, then thought is limited.
DB: Yes, thought depends on knowledge, and the knowledge does not cover everything,
therefore thought will not be able to handle everything that happens.
K: That is what the politicians and all the other people are doing.
They think thought can solve every problem.
DB: You can see in the case of politicians that knowledge is very limited, in fact it is almost non-existent! (Donald 2020 QED! )
Therefore when you lack the adequate knowledge of what you are dealing with, you create confusion.
K: Yes.
So then, as thought is limited, our consciousness, which has been put together by thought, is limited.
DB: Can you make it clear? That means we can only repeat, stay in the same circle.
K: Same circle.
DB: One of the ideas might be, if you compare with science, that people might think though my knowledge is limited, I am constantly discovering.
K: But what you discover is added to, but is still limited.
DB: It is still limited. That is the point. I think one of the ideas behind a scientific approach is that,
though knowledge is limited, I can discover and keep up with the actuality.
K: But that is also limited.
DB: My discoveries are limited. And there is always the unknown, which I have not discovered.
K: That is why I am saying, the unknown, the limitless, cannot be captured by thought.
DB: Yes.
K: Because thought in itself is limited. If you and I agree to that, not only agree, but it is a fact.
DB: A tendency to feel that way, that thought can do anything.
K: It can't. See what it has done in the world.
DB: Well, I agree that it has done some terrible things, but that doesn't prove that it is always wrong.
Maybe you could always blame it on the people who have used it wrongly.
K: I know, that is a good old trick!
Nitka iz Medzvezdna potovanja
Bargo: Torej, atomski svet se je ravno s tem, ko je postal predmet raziskovanja, transformiral iz uganke, kjer je mogoče najti rešitev, v skrivnost, ki te privlači ravno zato, ker ohranja skrivnost kljub povečevanju vedenja.
Roman:Povečevanje vedenja je po eni strani zmanjševanje čudežnosti, po drugi strani pa večanje ledine, ki jo je treba preorati. Čudežno se vedno skuša skriti za rob znanja.
Bargo: Max pravi, "Kar je mogoče raziskati je potrebno raziskati, česar ni mogoče raziskati je potrebno občudovati." Albert se smeji in dodaja: "Če pojasnim svet v celoti, potem še zmeraj ostane eno vprašanje odprto, kako to, da je svet mogoče pojasniti."
Bargo: Če sem jaz JAZ zato ker si ti TI in TI si ti ker sem JAZ jaz potem jaz nisem JAZ in ti nisi TI.
Ko ima težave z razumevanjem celo prof. Bohm:
K: (51:11) So, is it possible – that is the real question – is it possible not to become, psychologically?
DB: It seems that that would require that you should not be anything psychologically.
That is, as soon as you define yourself in any way, then...
K: No, we will define it in a minute or two.
DB: But I meant, if I define myself as greedy, or I say I am greedy, or I am this or I am that,
then either I will want to become something else or to remain what I am.
K: Now, can I remain what I am? Can I remain not with non-greed but with greed?
And greed is not different from me, greed is me.
DB: Yes.
The ordinary way of thinking is that I am here, and I could either be greedy or not greedy,
as these are attributes which I may or may not have.
K: But the attributes are me.
DB: Yes. That again goes very much against our common language and experience.
K: Of course, sir.
DB: Instead of saying that I am my attributes, which suggests that the thought of attribution creates the me.
The sense of me.
K: All the qualities, the attributes, the virtues, the judgements and conclusions and opinions, is me.
DB: Well, it seems to me that this would have to be perceived immediately as obvious.
K: That is the whole question. To perceive the totality of this whole movement, instantly.
K: Without love and compassion there is no intelligence. And that you cannot be compassionate
if you are attached to some religion,
if you are tied to a post like an animal tied to a post, and it can think it is compassionate.
DB: As soon as your self is threatened, then it all vanishes.what you really think is important.
K: The self hides behind...
DB: Other things, noble ideals.
K: Yes, it has immense capacity to hide itself.
So what is the future of mankind?
From what one observes it is leading to destruction.
DB: Well, that is the way it seems to be going, yes.
K: Very gloomy, grim, dangerous. And if one has children, what is their future? To enter into all this?
And go through all the misery of it all?
So education becomes extraordinarily important. But now education is merely the accumulation of knowledge.
DB: Yes, every instrument that man has invented or discovered or developed has been turned toward destruction.
Kako dobro, da se je pojavil internet!
J. Krishnamurti - Brockwood Park 1983 - Conversation 1 with D. Bohm - Is there an action
Krishnamurti (K): I don't think in terms of evolution.
D. Bohm (DB): Yes, I understand that. That is the point that I was expecting we would discuss.
I was expecting we would discuss that.
K: Yes. I don't think there is psychological evolution at all.
DB: Yes. Now, we have discussed this quite often, so I think I understand to some extent what you mean.
But I think the people who are new to this, or viewing this tape, are not going to understand.
K: Yes, we will discuss it, But I want to discuss this whole question, if you will.
Why are we concerned about the future? Or only the whole future is now?
DB: Now, why do you say knowledge is always limited?
K: Because you, as a scientist, you are experimenting, adding, searching, so you are adding,
and after you some other person will add more. So knowledge, which is born of experience, is limited.
K: We are talking about the future of man.
DB: All right, so we are saying that man cannot obtain unlimited knowledge of the psyche.
Is that what you mean?
K: Yes, that is right.
DB: There is always more that is unknown.
K: Yes, there is more and more unknown.
K: So, if once we admit that knowledge is limited, then thought is limited.
DB: Yes, thought depends on knowledge, and the knowledge does not cover everything,
therefore thought will not be able to handle everything that happens.
K: That is what the politicians and all the other people are doing.
They think thought can solve every problem.
DB: You can see in the case of politicians that knowledge is very limited, in fact it is almost non-existent! (Donald 2020 QED! )
Therefore when you lack the adequate knowledge of what you are dealing with, you create confusion.
K: Yes.
So then, as thought is limited, our consciousness, which has been put together by thought, is limited.
DB: Can you make it clear? That means we can only repeat, stay in the same circle.
K: Same circle.
DB: One of the ideas might be, if you compare with science, that people might think though my knowledge is limited, I am constantly discovering.
K: But what you discover is added to, but is still limited.
DB: It is still limited. That is the point. I think one of the ideas behind a scientific approach is that,
though knowledge is limited, I can discover and keep up with the actuality.
K: But that is also limited.
DB: My discoveries are limited. And there is always the unknown, which I have not discovered.
K: That is why I am saying, the unknown, the limitless, cannot be captured by thought.
DB: Yes.
K: Because thought in itself is limited. If you and I agree to that, not only agree, but it is a fact.
DB: A tendency to feel that way, that thought can do anything.
K: It can't. See what it has done in the world.
DB: Well, I agree that it has done some terrible things, but that doesn't prove that it is always wrong.
Maybe you could always blame it on the people who have used it wrongly.
K: I know, that is a good old trick!
Nitka iz Medzvezdna potovanja
Bargo: Torej, atomski svet se je ravno s tem, ko je postal predmet raziskovanja, transformiral iz uganke, kjer je mogoče najti rešitev, v skrivnost, ki te privlači ravno zato, ker ohranja skrivnost kljub povečevanju vedenja.
Roman:Povečevanje vedenja je po eni strani zmanjševanje čudežnosti, po drugi strani pa večanje ledine, ki jo je treba preorati. Čudežno se vedno skuša skriti za rob znanja.
Bargo: Max pravi, "Kar je mogoče raziskati je potrebno raziskati, česar ni mogoče raziskati je potrebno občudovati." Albert se smeji in dodaja: "Če pojasnim svet v celoti, potem še zmeraj ostane eno vprašanje odprto, kako to, da je svet mogoče pojasniti."
Bargo: Če sem jaz JAZ zato ker si ti TI in TI si ti ker sem JAZ jaz potem jaz nisem JAZ in ti nisi TI.
Ko ima težave z razumevanjem celo prof. Bohm:
K: (51:11) So, is it possible – that is the real question – is it possible not to become, psychologically?
DB: It seems that that would require that you should not be anything psychologically.
That is, as soon as you define yourself in any way, then...
K: No, we will define it in a minute or two.
DB: But I meant, if I define myself as greedy, or I say I am greedy, or I am this or I am that,
then either I will want to become something else or to remain what I am.
K: Now, can I remain what I am? Can I remain not with non-greed but with greed?
And greed is not different from me, greed is me.
DB: Yes.
The ordinary way of thinking is that I am here, and I could either be greedy or not greedy,
as these are attributes which I may or may not have.
K: But the attributes are me.
DB: Yes. That again goes very much against our common language and experience.
K: Of course, sir.
DB: Instead of saying that I am my attributes, which suggests that the thought of attribution creates the me.
The sense of me.
K: All the qualities, the attributes, the virtues, the judgements and conclusions and opinions, is me.
DB: Well, it seems to me that this would have to be perceived immediately as obvious.
K: That is the whole question. To perceive the totality of this whole movement, instantly.
K: Without love and compassion there is no intelligence. And that you cannot be compassionate
if you are attached to some religion,
if you are tied to a post like an animal tied to a post, and it can think it is compassionate.
DB: As soon as your self is threatened, then it all vanishes.what you really think is important.
K: The self hides behind...
DB: Other things, noble ideals.
K: Yes, it has immense capacity to hide itself.
So what is the future of mankind?
From what one observes it is leading to destruction.
DB: Well, that is the way it seems to be going, yes.
K: Very gloomy, grim, dangerous. And if one has children, what is their future? To enter into all this?
And go through all the misery of it all?
So education becomes extraordinarily important. But now education is merely the accumulation of knowledge.
DB: Yes, every instrument that man has invented or discovered or developed has been turned toward destruction.
Kako dobro, da se je pojavil internet!