a reply to: Willtell
Ill only say Krishnamurti whatever else he was, was a mystic and they do claim the right in itself to interpret reality from standpoints of higher
consciousness which, although never denies the exigency of the lower realms, still have a place for what people might call or understand as
specialized consciousness, or in ontological reference, a State. It has to do with what mystics would call, the above. It gets outside of something
enough to see better….clearer. Its focus is so intense that clear light focuses awareness on a phenomenon and can be understood better.
I subscribe to the scientific method, something Krishnamurti did not.
So what is the scientific method? Stated simply and easily: hypothesis and observation - oscillating back and forth. Hypothesis and observation could
be said to be the way Humans 'discourse with the universe' in COHERENT ways i.e. in ways that are consistent with the ecological and relational
substratum of things.
When you said about Krishnamurti made my blood boil. Do you know how I responded? I think to myself: if you express this affect, or accept this affect
i.e. simply by writing from it,
you, or the person I am communicating with, will experience my writing in a negative way. That is, you will
sense the underlying intentional state that motivates my writing.
Krishnamurti completely lacks this sort of ethological, i.e. naturalistic and biologically truthful, way of thinking or thinking about himself. Why is
that? I grant that he lived through the "crazy 60's", and like many other "gurus", seems to have become a confused narcissist because his reference
points for thinking were entirely polarized or reductive
, which is to say, because mainstream science has for so long been ridiculously
reductive and antagonistic towards objective meaning, other people, without realizing it, but quite aware of the "schools they oppose", jumped into
the opposite perspective, all the while non-realizing the dynamical continuity
between their own chosen direction and the polarized views of
In other words, Humans are like Russian dolls: the outer doll is the society-world relationship, which is long developed, and very old: it precedes us
and is exactly that which we genetically/epigenetically inherit from our immediate ancestors. It contains the entire corpus of the self-object
relations that give rise to human reality.
Around this society-world relationship - a point/counter-point structure in the Uexkullian sense, is he Self-Other relationship. The former
relationship becomes 'relational' through the transmission and evolution of symbols. By developing sign-systems, humans come to "know" the World i.e.
the ultimate metaphysical Other; Self-Other relations, in turn, are directed or under the influence of body language, facial expressions, eye gaze
and vocal tone - this being the 'intersubjective matrix" where meaning is first processed and made. This meaning-carrier PRECEDES symbolic
consciousness, and so, necessarily, precedes the words/ideas used by Krishnamurti.
Finally, within the intersubjective matrix lies a point-counter point dialogue between perception and action. Affect links the two in the same way
that non-verbal communication links self and other, and signs/symbols link humans to the world.
The lie, or the intense delusion, is that one can have a true understanding of the world (Krishnamurti) without first establishing coherency in the
interpersonal context (nonverbal meanings and their intrinsic powers) as well as the intrapsychic context.
Do you see why I am claiming here? Ancient metaphysical systems are GUESSES at how reality works, yet people with INSUFFICIENT knowledge, i.e.
operating in an informationally sparse environment (the ancient world) come to views which are inherently one-sided i.e. taking reality in from only
one perspective i.e. the emergent.
The issue is real, and because sexual-childhood abuse is inherently traumatic, and typically something that is difficult to put into language without
the support of an outside other to scaffold your preparedness to think and feel about it, the idea that Krishnamurti thought truthfully, or could
reason truthfully, without even a consideration of his own probably history of sexual abuse (this applies to Whitley Screiber as well) is quite
The pretense of humility simply does not square with his worm-like tendency to avoid reflecting, and, because he is so used to being treated, or
rather, thinking of himself as the sole arbiter of truth, as the theosophists spent so many years entraining him into believing, what you seem to end
up with is a person who is perhaps pathologically incapable of experiencing himself in the mode of student, particularly vis-à-vis the scientific
Lastly, if the human can, as I believe, make contact with the 'top', what on Earth would one ever assume that the bottom - or the actual structure of
reality, as described by the sciences - is irrelevant?
For me, knowing that symmetry runs from bottom to top, is the 'bottom' that parallels the "top" (or gnosis) that Krishnamurti was apparently effected
by. The difference between me and him, is that I'm committed to a perception of time, and do not consider time to be outside the universe or
incompatible with the Universe's essential nature.
What's terribly odd, to me, is how anyone pursuing a spiritual or ultimate meaning could push out of their head/reality facts of science, or assume,
as so many do, that such facts wouldn't embody truths of a more theosophical nature.
I.e. symmetry - is equality. Equality is care, love. It's also restraint, patience, and temperance.
There are those who advance positions that are intrinsically narcissistic, megalomaniacal, and so, for many, many people, a source of trauma as the
traumatizing narcissist is simply too involved with their own self-regulation/narcissistic sense of self-importance to recognize the damage they cause