F: We know only a state of the thinker thinking thoughts.
K: The thinker is not a permanent entity, as thought is not permanent. The
thinker is adjusting, modifying, adding. This is important. It is important to find
out whether the thinker sees that it is limited or whether thought as idea—idea
being organized thought—thinks that it is limited.
Now, who sees this? If the thinker sees that it is limited, then the thinker says
that there must be something more—there must be God, there must be something
beyond thinking. Right? If thought itself realizes that it cannot go beyond its own
tether, beyond its own rooted brain cells, which are the material root of thinking,
then what takes place?
P: You see, sir, that is the whole point. If you were to leave your teaching at this
point, I would understand. If you were to leave it at this point—that thought itself
sees its own limitation or that the brain cells themselves see it, and leave it at
that, then there would be a total consistency and logic in your position. But you
are always moving, going beyond this, and you cannot use any words.
Thereafter, call it what you like, the feeling of God is introduced.
K: I won’t accept the word ‘God’.
P: You take us by reason, by logic to a point. You do not leave it there.
K: Of course not.
P: That is the real paradox.
K: I refuse to accept it as a paradox.
F: The material of something and the meaning cannot be interchanged. P is
mixing up the two.
K: What she says is fairly simple. She says: We see the logic of what you say
about the thinker and the thought. But you do not leave it there. You push it
further.
P: Into an abstraction. I say that thought and the thinker are essentially one, but
that man has separated them for his own safety, permanency, security. We are
asking the question whether the thinker thinks thought is limited and, therefore,
posits something beyond because he must have security, or whether thought says
that whatever the movement of thought, however subtle, however obviously
reasonable, it is still limited. But K goes further than that, he goes into
abstractions.
K: I realize that thought and the thinker are very, very limited, but I do not stop
there. To do so would result in a purely materialistic philosophy. That is what