((note: I tried to comment on the “The Two Aspects of Truth” post by Niko but the material didn’t go through)).
Hi Niko. Sorry to say I missed seeing this re-post of something I wrote in 2006,. Just discovered it a few moments ago. Yes, we have been meaning to get back into this topic. I could not participate due to time constraints around personal matters but gladly am able to again participate. Thanks for the work you have put into starting and maintaining this blog. It has been a pleasure to inquire and work with you over the years. Basically in 2006 I did not understand a lot though I thought and felt I did, which just goes to show something or other about the subjectively perceived so called veracity of ones own or at least my own thinking and feeling at that time, though hopefully not now. Hmmm ….
So. reading the re-post was pretty boring, but I will try to use my own perceived lack of understanding as some kind of a tool: To begin, do I have a lack of understanding now? Maybe I should look into that, but how to proceed? Am I even able to be conscious of what I do not know, ie, that I do not know? This said. I see/sense/feel a question arising of how/if being in question fits into all of this, if it even does. Even is an interesting word, isn’t it? Krishnamurti talked a lot about using thought as a tool, which I think is important to do, but thinking, in itself, has often led me into the nether, and here a question arises about how form or construct fits into all of this, or better put, how ‘this’ fits into form/frame or construct. We, and I think I can, generally speaking, speak for all of humanity, are looking for a new way to use language, as this, in my opinion, is the new paradigm humanity has just or basically already entered, the previous paradigm for several decades being the realization that everything is interdependent. This kind of dialogue can go on and on much like eating peanuts, mixed metaphor, but will try to get down to brass tacks.
Deconstructing Krishnamurti 