wuglr

I think I'll share with you a humorous comment made by a member at PFI Forum when the Mexican outbreak was first being reported: this gives new meaning to the Mexican wave..

 

Yes, many poor and developing countries will be hit very hard by this outbreak. They are relying solely on the WHO to gage when to increase security and employ more strict mitigation strategies (restrictions on travel, public gatherings and events as well as quarantines, school closures and triage). But if the WHO are willing to delay changes of alert for richer countries, these poorer countries are placed at an even lower disadvantage. Not to mention, richer countries hording antivirals and signing contracts for very large percentages of vaccine production. This gives new meaning to survival of the fittest (those with the most influence).

 

Hope may be important for morale, but it only exists to compensate for fear (which causes panic). In emergencies we should be as level headed and clear minded as we can. Therefore, do you not think that we must consider preparing for the worst while hoping for the best? When we buy a car, or learn to drive, do we hope we won't get hit, and speed off down the motorway? Sure. But we buy insurance first. Would hope and prayer remove all chance of uncompensatable injury or damage due to accident? Natural disasters are similar, and many governments recommend preparing. The UK government advises to prepare a couple days supply of emergency food and water in the event of flood, power outages, storms etc, as well as an evacuation pack of some other essential items. I recently learnt Virginia has a tax holiday for hurricane supplies. There are many many more examples.

 

A pandemic is a natural disaster too, we are just more familiar with hurricanes, floods, storms, earthquakes and fires because they occur more frequently. Pandemic should be on the list; we should be informed, unafraid and as prepared as possible. No matter what happens.

 

As before:

To keep informed, PFI Forum is an excellent site. Look for a thread with today's date, or area/region of interest for relevant news.

getpandemicready.org is the resource for preparing.

As a word of advice, don't seek full detachment (from reality), it's not a healthy state of mind. You may question what reality or existence is, but in the end it is undeniable, therefore establishing truth.

That's why I'm asking; we all claim to 'know' our current perception, conditioning or grasp of things as truth, fact, and the only way it, or life, can be. This is taken for granted, we are cynical, obsessed with seeking pleasure, sensation and gratification day in, day out. Is this not the cause of all problems? (Greed, envy, murder, lust, theft, idol/ideal worship, deceit etc.)

 

Every time we try to escape 'reality', by conforming to a pattern other than ourselves (our pattern of conditioning), we conflict with ourselves (effort leads to effort).

 

Is there any other way to live? You say, no, lets not investigate. But have you experienced different? So can you truly know?

A simple, "shhhh Tom!" won't really suffice here!

"The earth is flat, I advise you not to look into it."

 

Continuing: again you haven't answered my questions, choosing to give authoritative advice, speaking from your opinion, memory, experience, perspective etc. What do you have other than that? It is logical we attempt to sustain and affirm it. What is reality, other than a (relative) concept or ideal? You've put the questions into your own words*, and interpreted my intentions. Why not simply answer the questions? That's the reason this thread exists. Not to be smart, correct or authoritative, but to question, look, and find out by questioning and looking.

 

Like with peace, when you described your experience of it.

 

All else we seem to have done is oppose.

 

What is health, or to be healthy? Is definition based on general consensus? An average? Choose those which conform (a majority), exclude the rest. Isn't this prejudice? Healthy to one, is sick to another.

If we are to judge by morals, isn't this also prejudice?

And by rules?

.. To judge at all?

 

I feel, and think, that I need to understand completely my feelings, my thoughts. Why is this not healthy?

 

The only thing preventing or denying this would be fear. Fear of change, fear of loss, fear of the unknown, fear of the unfamiliar. (Are you not afraid? I am afraid!)

 

But ok, let us stay in this self affirmed cycle of 'existence' - living in the past, concerning for the future - if that is what you wish.

 

 

 

ETA: *Seeking implies an idealised goal, achievement or measurable success. I said I was not speaking of ideals, merely understanding. The process of which itself might be susceptible to idealisation, but what can you say the result is? Clarity? Truth? Consider truth; that without any human intervention; that which exists; what is. Read these up to about #25 (not the lessons, just the titles. #25 because after, the ideal of God is introduced, as well as intention). Repeating them would be conforming to a pattern, sure. But remove the statements from the context of method and desired result. Just statements, with no strings, meaning or anything attached. What do you see?

Only if i deny all existence except myself can i say that. But that is to take on an extreme form of idealism, which has shown itself to be fallacious.

 

 

If we follow from what i have just finished answering, the reason why you are still not yet free is because you cannot avoid yourself, that is, if everything is merely a thought (idea). If we consider that everything is merely a figment of our own thoughts (ideas), then you are merely a burden onto yourself. However, there is a dilemma when faced with a purely idealistic world: you can not control the "thoughts" (i.e. the objects) around you merely through thought itself, and that these thoughts that were there for you to observe you did not "think up"?they just were. Secondly, if you wanted to make something out of thin air, it is not possible. So, in the end, one is forced to accept a reality, though still perceived by our mind, that exists beyond our own thoughts. It may also be the case that you are not the one doing the thinking for yourself.

 

But to mention something about obtaining knowledge and understanding: to me, the first step to these things is ignorance with the desire to want knowledge and understanding. It is said that the truth will set you free. But you have to ask yourself, "Set me free from what?"

What is existence?

What is myself/ me?

 

Myself is the thinker, the imaginer/formulator of routes by which to answer you; the delighter idealising the process of creation, and its creations.

 

I wasn't idealising, I was seeing these things happen in me. But yes I do not know peace (altho, peace cannot be known as such, by definition of knowledge:ownership,possession), because I still try to be free from the things I see, like the thinker, seeing thought (itself) and trying to be free of it. I see this in myself, it always leads to a cycle of oppression and resistance (conflict). As I said before, effort is only the means to effort. I see that my effort is restrictive to the ideal of freedom.

 

Perhaps I do act towards an ideal, but here I am not talking of an ideal, I am not sinking my mental-image-teeth into the feeling and impression I have of freedom, or peace. I have not experienced either, they are not in my conditioning, my bundle (can they ever be?). But this is where language causes problems, as it is restrictive, and the things I am talking of are non-restrictable (which, after stating, also restricts).

 

You may see ideals in what I say, but this end, I am not idealising. Even tho, as is obvious, 'not-idealising' is an ideal, idea or concept of itself; the absence of a thing. It labels and restricts, and dictates prerequisites; in this instance existence.

 

We are brought back to the question, what is existence?

Can existence (of anything) be proved or disproved?

What is outside our perception (the processing, storing and labeling of sensory input)? (Or is there anything other than perception?)

 

Again, please do note, I am not idealising, nor suggesting or forcing a theory. I am really asking! Tho, not for authority. For seeing; what we call truth.

For me it is to be separated from annoyances and worries, and be satisfied (or content) with that.
But from my experiences, i have learned that to have things go entirely my way is non-sense.

Would you say these annoyances and worries stem from, or could also be called, thought?

Krishnamurti said or wrote once, somewhere, that the observer is the observed.

Who or what is the thinker?
Is thought separate from the thinker?

I do not know peace. I know its definition, and I know some of my associations, but I do not know peace; annoyance, worry and thought are 'things' I am yet to be free of.



After reading over, Krishnamurti also says that the only means to something is the thing itself. So a happy end requires a happy means, a violent means can only result in violent end. Effort, routine, method and conforming to a pattern are means only to themselves. Becoming 'free' of something requires freedom as means. He describes means as the first step. The first step towards understanding can only be understanding. The first step toward freedom can only be freedom. This all, obviously, makes the first step the same as the last. Then there is only the thing or end, and no means or method, process or time.
But still I say, "I am 'yet' to be free"..

Do you know peace?Describe it to me. Simply, plainly, as you experience it.

nol, as of May 29th there have been 15 reported deaths in the US from this outbreak, and there are 8,975 confirmed cases. Not everyone with symptoms of influenza like illness is being tested, mostly those with severe illness, those requiring hospitalisation and those in high risk categories.

http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/update.htm

 

It is true that America has better health care, but there are many factors which have to be taken into account. For example, the number of US citizens without health insurance, staff shortages in health care professions and ICU surge capacities, combined with hospitalization rates and average age of hospitaizations.

 

We must also take into account the potential mutations that have yet to surface. Seasonal flu is resistant to the main antiviral currently in use against the new H1N1, Tamiflu. It is winter in the southern hemisphere now, and one of our greatest concerns should be the high possibility of new H1N1 reassorting with seasonal flu, taking it's Tamiflu resistance with it and rendering it untreatable. H5N1 is also endemic in Egypt and other middle eastern countries. A reassortment with that would be worst case senario.

 

There is definitely more to this than we are being told by the 10 o'clock news.

I do not have the energy to battle with you brother. You have brought us back to the same toing and froing of before. I cannot respond in attempt to understand the subject based on anything you have said. You have not contributed to the thread, you have simply defended yourself, or used theory and intellect to disprove or discredit what I have said. I am not saying these things in spite, they are obvious for anyone to see.This was not a construct, I was not creating a theory and in need of criticism. As far as I could tell, you agreed to start over with this thread. Your responses so far have shown you unable to leave debate and opposition when outside the field of idealising and theorising. All that was required was to approach this openly, and not apply the bundle of associations, memories, opinions, and judgments that make you right, and me wrong.Why have you resisted so much? Is it my tone, or all the mistakes I make? Can you truly see no way to personally go into this? Or do you have no interest in it? Or would you rather refrain from exploring these things so openly on the internet, with no theoretical or intellectual front?ETA: I have re-read this post a couple times and realised my questions and statements may come across as personal attacks or be found insulting. If this is the case, then I am truly sorry. They are not in any way intended to be.

I shall add to the definition of ideal as I don't agree it has any predefined status. Hitler's actions were based on ideals, he believed Jews should be killed. The importance or given status of an ideal is relative. In this case, its definition could be:

 

Ideal: a mental image, idea (thought) or concept (idea or set of ideas).

 

These definitions are not intended to improve our intellectual responses, we are already educated enough to converse in straight forward English. Regardless of how many mistakes we may make, and let this not be a matter of personal correctness or incorrectness, let us go into this and understand. We do not need to debate. Let this not be a competition at any level.

 

It is true, to completely understand the definitions you gave (and those I have previously given), one would have to specify the meaning of opposition, truth, falsehood, accomplishment, idea and status. However, if we follow this path much more, we may very well end up referencing an entire dictionary! If it is still the case that words used to define need further definition in order to be understood, why don't we define to the finest point we can? The lowest common definitions, perhaps. Definitions that young children could understand. Then we would be able to understand exactly (or almost!) what something is. When observing, we should also look at ourselves as examples in aid of understanding the nature or definition of things.

 

To start, I'll take conflict. If I were to look at myself I would observe conflict most of the time. From what I see, it is not always receiving opposition. There is opposition, yes, but it does not stem from thought A and toward B, it is simply there, between the two (or three, or four etc.), at any given moment. So, I am conflicted in my thoughts. I am also conflicted with my family, my friends, people, bodies, organisations and governments, and their decisions, actions and words.

 

Could the definition of ideal be extended to include thought?

If so, thought is, at its lowest level, no more than image, idea and concept (all of which are the response of memory). Therefore, once I have looked a little closer at myself, I see that not just my thoughts, but my ideals are conflicted.

 

Do you see anything contrary to this? Is this similar or dissimilar to any conflict you experience?

truefusion, thankyou again for taking the time to reply. Let us not quarrel over words anymore.

Will you define these?

Conflict.
Belief.
Success.
Pain.
Ideal.

We must be sure of what we are discussing.

With regards to your response, I shall say one thing in strictest disagreement.

..i receive the impression that you are attempting to challenge what is written in the First and Last Freedom.

I am in no way, shape or form challenging anything I have read of Krishnamurti. I read Krishnamurti each day, and am learning an unfathomable amount from it. This post is, for me, a result of what Krishnamurti says, or at least, what he questions.

I had no purpose other than going into spirituality when posting this thread. But it quickly morphed to intellectually and verbally proving and disproving, defining and redefining, which is an endless cycle. Anything can be proved or disproved using intellect and opinion.

How about I propose to start this again? But we have to approach it with complete honesty. Are you interested? Perhaps you could reform the questions in a manor which doesn't imply hidden intentions or narrow mindedness to you. Or ask some fresh ones which you would like to go into, or know the answers of. Obviously, by you I mean truefusion or anyone else. The only requirement is to answer through observation, and not through opinion, and to bear in mind the definitions given for above words.

peace & love

Hi webishqiptar, hi truefusion. Thankyou for taking the time to reply.

"Success" is generally a relative term; likewise, its importance is generally relative. For that reason, though your question may seek an objective answer, it is bound to receive a subjective one. But i will say, concerning the last part of the question, that success is "important" because it often follows with a desirable implication—because it sounds like something nice to have, but not necessarily because it is nice to have.

In terms of intellectual response (that of 'casual' thought), any question will receive a subjective answer. We answer, and execute authority (high/ low social status), based on our conditioning (memory, position, opinion of subject, individual & ourselves - morals, likes & dislikes, goals, desires etc. Perception) The question I asked, however, was intended to challenge this, and evoke a non-automated response, or at the least, "deeper" thought.

Is the definition of the word success relative? And is it's importance relative? If we observe instead of speculate, what is seen? Is success a fixation? Where can it be found? Surely it is in every aspect of ones life! Wealth, possession, status, divinity, relationship, pleasure. So success is the object of desire, it is satisfaction. If you were to ask 'so what was the point with the first question?', I'd say to illustrate the human race's obsession with success, satisfaction, gratification and gain.

This question implies that there is already a definition for the word "success" and that it is subjective to the religion or "belief structure." The question also seems to be forcing a belief through implication that all "belief structures and ideologies" are practically the same. While that may be true for many, it is not true for all. "Success" may or may not exist in the religion. In fact, "success" is generally limited to this world, therefore being irrelevant for those that worry about the hereafter, therefore not existing in the religion or "belief structure." But in an attempt to answer the question anyway, trial and error could be the reason why. Many times is it because one copied the idea from the other and tried to add to it. You see this in the business world many times. They tend to call this an "education" or "experience." For that reason, it need not be limited to "belief structures or ideologies."

There is already a definition for success, of course. The merriam-webster online dictionary reads:

1 obsolete : outcome, result 2 a: degree or measure of succeeding b: favorable or desired outcome; also : the attainment of wealth, favor, or eminence
3: one that succeeds

I did not say all belief structures are the same. And I agree, they are all different. We can observe that they use different languages, words, names, colours, figures, people, books, clothes, places etc. Obviously, all to varying degrees. Don't all belief structures, however, share several common factors? The main similarity between all faith, and you must agree, is belief in a person, an object or an ideal. Success is also involved in belief. There is always a goal, or something to achieve (through whatever means), in relation to that person, object or ideal.

Is that not success?

Your comment 'it need not be limited to "belief structures or ideologies."' perfectly illustrates exactly the purpose of my second question, which was to further emphasize the importance of success in modern day living, especially its key involvement in religion, belief and spirituality. (An important question here could be, what is the difference between the desire for success, and greed or lust?)

Time is a measurement of length between one point to another. Time came from observing the sun and the moon. Since then, many theories has popped up concerning time. The question is similar to asking, "Why do humans do what they do?" but perhaps with some exception to prophecies. Logic actually plays a role in many of these things. Logic, here, can be guided by faith or vice versa. For example, "How do i go about in doing or achieving something?" Or, "If something could not always exist, then how did it come into existence?" Or, "What do i do next?" For that reason, it need not be limited to "belief structures and ideologies"—as it is common in practically every field you look in.

Time is a construct or an ideal. It is indeed the result of perception.
Here you also mention Logic, and explain its presence with examples also attributable to Method; the "how" and "what".
As for your comment '"If something could not always exist, then how did it come into existence?"', my questions were not regarding the contents of ideals, but only of their significance.

Why do humans do what they do? Well, it's almost as if we've switched places! That's exactly what these questions are enquiring into. Surely to understand peace, truth, love and freedom, we must understand ourselves? Is this not logic? And sure, it might seem like method too, but only if peace, truth, love and freedom (etc.) are idealized, coveted and seen as a goal.

Conflict is not necessarily disliked. By asking "why is it disliked?" you already assume a definition for the word, therefore somewhat making the first part of your question irrelevant. For that reason, you are limiting what could or would be the answer to the first part of your question. But why something is disliked may depend on the person, whether it be concerning "conflict" or not.

Again, your question implies a definition for conflict, for it assumes what the answer to the previous question would be. Indeed, you have provided many examples on what you would call or consider to be "conflict" when that may not be true necessarily. For this reason, the question itself is slightly closed a bit, that is, narrow. For that reason, i see little reason in answering the question. Nevertheless, it is not any belief, but certain beliefs, that is, not all beliefs lead to what you perceive as "conflict."

Firstly. Imagine this. I observed conflict, I observed that it was disliked. I want to know what it is, and why it is disliked. That is not suggestive, it does not imply, and, as far as I can understand, it is not narrow. (Have you answered the questions? Do I now know any better what conflict is and why is is disliked because of your answer? Do you?)
Perhaps I shall answer:

Conflict in actual existence in one persons life, may indeed not equal the experienced conflict of another. It is relative in terms of subject, but not in terms of affliction. And again, as with success, the word already has a definition:

1: fight, battle, war <an armed conflict> 2 a: competitive or opposing action of incompatibles : antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons) b: mental struggle resulting from incompatible or opposing needs, drives, wishes, or external or internal demands
3: the opposition of persons or forces that gives rise to the dramatic action in a drama or fiction

In other words, conflict equates to loss and pain. It is fundamentally disliked, by definition. Pain for person A may be pleasure for person B. However, person B will also experience pain, be it different to or similar to the experience of others.

Now, my question was "why is it disliked?". My answer would be, because conflict causes pain, and pain is disliked. If you would like to discuss why pain is disliked, please do!

We have established what conflict is, correct? Please say if you disagree.
Let's look at the statement 'belief breeds conflict'.
We should first answer the question 'what is belief?' Belief is a set of morals and values in relation to a person, object and/or ideal. For example: Jesus is THE saviour of man, THE son of God, he HAS died for the sins of the human race, and NO METHOD save accepting him and repenting will ensure ones entrance into heaven.
Does this belief cause conflict? (Not because of names, places or people etc. but because of the simple fact that it is a belief. If offended, replace Jesus and subsequent context with that of Muhammad or Krishna etc.) If we added an alternate example, which dictated another person, object or ideal to equal Jesus, the two beliefs, on paper, would be contradictory, or there would be conflict between them. We see this conflict in life all the time.
My friend for example, is a follower of Jesus. He might believe very strongly, 'NO METHOD save accepting him and repenting will ensure ones entrance into heaven.' My friend sees me, with a belief (the specifics are irrelevant) contradictory to his. My friend may love me, and feel concerned for my well-being. 'Tom shall go to hell!' he may think. This is emotional conflict; my friend will feel conflicted as he is unsure whether to oppose or oppress his belief over mine, even tho he very much wants the best for me. He has two options here; to suppress his desire, or to allow it to oppress my belief. Both options (suppression and oppression), obviously, would cause more conflict.
The next 'level' is physical or verbal. This is, quite simply, where action is taken in emphasis of or in resistance to belief (thought). The same (thought) process as before, but resulting in things such as prejudice, discrimination, condemnation, violence and war (for each of these, think ANY kind). This world is ridden with these things, and it is because of belief, because of thought. Each person desires success, each person seeks it, and the result is conflict.

I haven't read the entire thing, but from what i did read, your questions contradict what is written. Though i found a few problems with what i did read, i find referencing the First and Last Freedom slightly inconsistent with your questions. From what i did read, it mentions that finding truths cannot involve personal bias or prejudice when you search for it. However, as we have so seen, your questions are quite limiting to a narrow point of view.

In what way do the questions contradict what is written? They are questions. How can a question contradict? If, however, you are referring to their implications, then I am sorry, but these were formed in your mind. They are nothing to do with the the questions.
The problems you found are also yours (based on your conditioning), and they do not validate or discredit. It is a prime example of the conflict (problems) conditioning (belief, personal bias or prejudice) creates.

Krishnamurti says that truth cannot be found. It cannot be sought. It cannot be gained. It is not a reward, and cannot be measured in terms of success (or at all). Truth 'exists' in the absence of thought, as thought breeds conflict - a state in which peace, love and truth cannot exist.

Firstly, to rnichilo regarding how the media is dealing with the flu outbreak, I would have to disagree with you. The whole situation has and is being downplayed an awful lot by Governments, MSM and other organizations in attempt to avoid 'mass-panic'. This is an unbelievably obvious example. The irony is that on the same day the WHO decided to forfeit their job and review their own rules (again), Margaret Chan is quoted saying, "for the first time in humanity, we are seeing, or we may be seeing, pandemic influenza unfolding before our eyes." What I don't understand is why the stating of facts and informing people of possible danger is viewed as causing panic! I personally don't know anybody who has panicked due to the current flu outbreak, but I've heard a lot of people talking about the panic the media caused...

 

 

Secondly, here's my two cents on the "Information" side.

 

A Caution: speaking from experience, some of the information contained on these websites may be upsetting or worrying.

An excellent map documenting suspected and confirmed cases as well as deaths from the current H1N1 outbreak can be found here: FluTracker map. It's run by Dr. Henry Niman, who's also behind flutrackers.com. For news and information on flu I regularly visit the Pandemic Flu Information forum and have a catch up on posts (they get through an awful lot of news!)

 

Other websites for general information include:

pandemicflu.gov - "One-stop access to U.S. Government H1N1, avian and pandemic flu information." Plan & prepare -> Individuals & Families has some basic prepping information.

getpandemicready.org - Information covering all/ most aspects of preparing for a pandemic.

birdflumanual.com - Site of Dr. Grattan Woodson. The Good Home Treatment of Influenza pdf is very informative.

fluwikie.com - Everything I just mentioned, and a whole lot more can be found here.

 

Please forgive me if I have broken any rules by posting multiple links, and have mercy.

 

Here's hoping someone will find this information useful!

p&l

Here are some questions which I find very important in the understanding of spirituality and belief. They are observational, please do discuss or answer them if you like.

What is success and why is it important?
Why do belief structures and ideologies share a process, a method or some measurement for success?

What is time and where does it come from?
Why do belief structures and ideologies share common linear scales? (Permanency, periods of effort/ commitment, prophecies, celebrations etc)

What is conflict and why is it disliked?
Why does belief (any belief) and ideology (/the ideal) breed conflict? (War, condemnation, discrimination, prejudice, guilt, fear, envy, hate etc.)


To accompany them (and to the same effect), here is a chapter of Jiddu Krishnamurti's The First and Last Freedom (plain text):
http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

I'm very interested in what people think of both the chapter and questions. Please feel free to say whatever you like.

p&l

Hi Fractured.Logic, thanks for the welcome and info!

I'm tom, a musician. I'm here for the hosting of course, tho after a brief once over of the forum, am beginning to take nicely to the contribution idea. I'm not all that knowledgeable when it comes to the programming side of technology, my main field I'd nominate as audio and recording. Having said that, I can do ok with basic to mid level html and css.Other interests at the moment would predominately include the recent flu outbreak. The past couple days I've lagged slightly keeping myself updated, but usually I'm over at PFI forum a lot of the time. I also prep.I'm looking forward to meeting folks here and involving myself in discussion as much as I can. p&l