Intro:
My apologies for disappearing; got deeply involved in another project but am still dedicated to writing here. As some know, one of my final disillusionments with Krishnamurti came when reading his book “The Ending Of Time.” Oddly, and even sadly, many people feel this is his most significant important work and that there is some kind of brilliant revelation regarding the nature of the universe hidden therein. Imo that is false, but I am going to look at this book again before I make that my final conclusion, and, by the way, there is such a thing as functional certainty, and some conclusions do need to be, in a sense, final. If human beings were completely open to being wrong about anything and everything and consciously in that mode and only that mode of processing data, humanity would not survive. I do acknowledge that a fixed-in- stone way of processing data can also be a downfall, so is there a middle way?
For one thing, if we try to do away with what Krishnamurti (sometimes:-) called psychological time. which is not even possible, then there could be no middle way, as we would be merely mechanical clock-referencing robots. As many of us reading here know, Gurdjieff referred to time as “the unique subjective. This seems very profound—at least it did to me when I was younger, but actually, if you really take the time to think about it, the sense and feeling of time is and forever will be intricately interconnected with each individuals subjective contextual experiencing of perceived pain and pleasure. There is a proverb, perhaps the best know of all English language proverbs, or, better put, riddles: “a stitch in time saves nine.” Hmm:-)
Deconstructing Krishnamurti 