operative function, a design; knowledge does not operate where there is no place
for thought and, therefore, for will.
F: It seems that sometimes we operate intentionally and sometimes non-
intentionally. I can see that sometimes I do something without knowing. So there
are these two operations: mental and non-mental. The movement of the two is
not separate.
K: Watch your mind, F. You see thought operating always within the field of
knowledge. Knowledge helps man to live more comfortably in the environment.
Right? It also brings pain, misery and confusion. That is a fact.
F: I object to your use of the word ‘always’.
K: Wait. Then you and I ask: Is thought necessary? Why does thought create
misery? Is it possible for thought not to create misery? That is all. Keep it as
simple as this.
F: My answer is that the roots of our misery are not known to us. I am not aware
of the promptings which create misery.
K: We began with the superficial layers. We must now go into the secret
chambers of the mind.
P: Surely we are not positing a state of consciousness where thought will operate
only at the technological level and at the day-to-day level of action, where it is
necessary, and that it would be sufficient if by some trick or electric shock, all
other consciousness as thought could be wiped away? We are not postulating
that, surely?
K: Of course not.
P: But look sir, the moment you speak of a place where thought can operate
legitimately and a place where thought has no legitimate place, you are
postulating the ‘other’—a state which is non-thought. If consciousness is only
content, then what is the ‘other’?
D: I can go into a state of constant euphoria through a lobotomy. Is that enough?
K: Then you become a vegetable.
F: I question your statement that thought is consciousness. Is thought the entirety
of consciousness? Can we say that there is no consciousness beyond thought?
K: So we have to go into the question of consciousness.