I'm beginning to think that the entire habit of demonizing time in the so-called 'Aryan civilizations" - but really applicable to al traumatized
people - forms in the background of the relational trauma of early life sexual abuse.
Let's be perfectly honest: C.W. Leadbeater, a famous theosophist, was also pedophile. Krishnamurti was raised by this man, and no doubt,
unfortunately, was forced to metabolize many experiences that, as is well known to ALL PSYCHODYNAMICALLY ENLIGHTENED therapists (capitalized because
of its fundamental importance!) is the basis of what's known as "borderline states of consciousness".
Early life sexual abuse is the very beginning and core of "not being known". To think a child of any age - before puberty - has any such desires, is
to be naively related to the intersubjtecively generated affects that underlie your motivational states. You are confused - lost - and unable to
reorder yourself in a semiotically coherent way, when the past, and a symmetry dynamic that was necessary for healthy development (I.e. adult
UNDERSTANDS what child is feeling/wanting is complementary/symmetrical) was VIOLATED by a perversely organized adult that pretended - because of the
various unconscious social-circumstances that are mindlessly TAKEN FOR GRANTED as important - that he had a "higher reason" for doing what he did
Blaming time is the only road left if shame and the consequences of its effects are left unaddressed. The only reason - the only basis - for a
pathological obsession of "ending-time", has its roots in the relational dysregulation - inhumanity, selfishness, and egoistic pursuit of desire -
that doesn't relatedly mindfully - or with a sense of conscious power - in relation to illicit thoughts or feelings.
Krishnamurti, perhaps a good man at times, was fundamentally in denial about the structured nature of his mental experience. Even though perception
occurs through time, and experience is constantly being conditioned by past experience, with each new meaning modifying the last, the power of shame,
and the power of its dysregulating impact on an adult human consciousness, is extreme - so much so that all this meaning can be dissociated and
ignored in the reasoning process.
As much as Krishnamurti imagined himself "outside time", he and his questions, for instance, in "The Ending of Time", are completely riddled by
motivations of guilt, confusion, and semantical incoherency, primarily because Krishnamurti is so abtract - so out of touch with the facts of
contemporary neuroscience and philosophy, around embodiment, extension, and complementarity of structure. He wrote in a different time period, yet the
book is still turned to today as if the issue, as he presented it, doesn't imply some unrecognized pathological orientation.
Tryign to explain the human being outside of the INTERSUBJECTIVE context is a doomed failure - doomed because it pretends that the sign-systems of
communication between humans are not simultaneously functionally and semantically involved in generating new ontological structure. Our mind IS our
Brain; there is no "two" - but an inside, and an outside. Krishnamurti's dissociative tendencies reach absurd lengths, when, like Descartes, he
wonders whether a part of the brain "lies outside time".
In short - your face looks as it does because another face was trying to extract meaning from it. Your sclera - or white of your eyes - looks as it
does because other people needed to see YOUR intentional states, which are indicated by the contrast between the pupil/iris and the white.
To claim, in short, anything about yourself - ontologically - that tries to abstract from the social-context - from the conditioning impact of
development, or what pediatricians and child psychologists call the "neurosequential model of therapeutics", where the most effective forms of
treatment are those which properly represent the period of time in a persons development where something went wrong - is fundamentally ignorant,
fantasy-based, and from an educated perspective, pathetic in it's grasping at "fixing" a problem in a way that will ONLY WORSEN the problem.
If states, for example, depend on acknowledging time - such as being punctual in relationships, acknowledging what anther person said, etc, then there
is, in fact ,"psychological time".
[I]“You see, I want to [laughing] abolish time, psychologically. You understand?...To me, that is the enemy.” [/I] – J Krishnamurti, David Bohm,
The Ending of Time; pg. 14, Harper One, 2014
Or does internal representations - known in philosophy as "non-conceptual meanings", not exist? In the brain, such meanings are 'right-brain' signs,
recognized implicitly, which direct the formulation of the approach taken by linguistic based cognitive systems. Krishnamurti, in not being a
psychologist, proves how utterly useless his philosophizing is against the facts of clinical psychology and its growing understanding that the issue,
fundamentally, is about affect-regulation i.e. not feeling right at the affective, analogue, self-other semiotic level, i.e. experiencing percepts
that tend to represent the environment or others negatively, and this dysfuntion is predominantly the environment, but also, partially, and thanks to
the accumulated effect of thousands of years of a traumatizing world that spread aryan and middle eastern fantasies about the self (built out of
imperialist motives) genetic and epigenetic systems that make people "sensitive" to the cultural meanings that their system is already sensitive to
How do we fix this, if such egotism is connected to people with these sorts of beliefs? Unless Sex - and its noxious, perverting influence in the form
of child sexual abuse, is acknowledged as what redirects consciousness towards time, and away from traumatological affects with an inherently social
structure i.e. shame, and how such affect operates by directing our conscious experience in such a way at to prevent the emergence of destabilizing
states of mind.
Westerners have ben peddling this delusion about time for a long time, and it is insidiously off-target in trying to make the world better.
The problem is not, and has never been, and cannot even be - at a sheer logical level - the issue of time. Whatever Krishnamurti experiences in the
height of meditation, of course, is profoundly interesting; but side by side with his spiritual insight, lies a hurt child - unknown, and
unacknowledged - because Krishnamurti chooses to make his meaning in a way that doesn't acknowledge - or couldn't acknowledge - facts of neuroscience,
phenomenology, and developmental psychology, which see's the human being as fundamentally an intersubjective, and dyadic phenomenon: thus, trying to
find an explanation for any question of conflict that doesn't address how we experience ourselves in relation to certain issues that unconsciously
activate shame (such as the present issue, for those people who DO have some history they are not in conscious contact with).
We live in a SEMIOTIC reality. It is because we take thing in in such an ignorant, simple-minded way, that the genius of someone like Charles Sanders
Peirce, who wrote more than a century ago, has gone unrecognized, because the rotten, capitalist creed of "its good to be selfish", utterly perverts
human beings and their awareness - or care to be aware of - the motivations which underlie their actions.
edit on 24-6-2017 by Astrocyte
because: (no reason given)