" Thinking about the concept of power and force within the context of the current global crisis leads us toward some profound conclusions. For one, agendas that center around inequality, control, profit and material gain are always driven by force.
Force is a tool used by those who lack power. When your motives go against the good of humanity, when your intentions fail to support life itself, your only option is to use force. Force includes all manner of fear-mongering, manipulation, coercion and violence. Force may work up to a point but as we discovered, it requires a constant input of energy and therefore, results are obtained at a cost. Propaganda campaigns require vast amounts of money, coordination and tireless censorship. Vaccine mandates require bribes, threats, and the covering up of adverse events.
This energy input is immense and, most importantly, unsustainable."
I enjoyed the article, I was glad to see the photo of David Bohm and J. Krishnamurti.
That said, I find Krishnamurtiâs approach, after much study, quite âpie in the skyâ, though on first contact it seems revolutionary, maybe because his criticism of society and religion seems to reinforce my own belief. However, when you get down to the nitty gritty, Krishnamurtiâs âperceptionâ is âpsychological revolution via the realization that the observer is the observedâ. The problem here is the same as the Jesus solution: âlove your neighbor as yourselfâ. In both cases the proof is in the pudding, we find it impossible to truly realize the âobserver is the observedâ and to truly âlove our neighbor as ourselvesâ. Krishnamurti âspokeâ for fifty years saying essentially the same thing over and over, often to the same people, and at the end he himself said nobody âgot itâ, not even David Bohm. We can state, with Krishnamurti, âthe thinker is the thoughtâ, but we still live as if there is a thinker who thinks a thought. Krishnamurti also made a big boo boo, if we can call being a normal guy a boo boo, he had, for 20 years, a husband wife relationship with the wife of his closest associate, which became the âhidden backstoryâ of 30 years of legal struggle concerning his property with that associate. His âofficial biographerâ lied about the story, then the daughter of the husband/wife spilled the beans. My point is that when push came to shove Krishnamurti turned to the legal system, the system of organized violence, to get back and secure his property. And he never talked about that, despite the fact that âconflictâ was one of his main topics. Iâm not sure what all that means, except that he clearly did not transcend the âconflict over propertyâ which seems at the base of so much of our conflict. I find Krishnamurti both stimulating and extremely frustrating, because implicitly he creates an unreachable ideal and implicitly he claims he himself reached that ideal. He doesnât dwell on that, but the claim is there if you listen and/or read attentively his âteachingsâ.
That sounds like a confusion between perceiving and conceiving.
Bohm has been cited frequently in recent years by A. Amaro, the abbot of Amaravati (largest UK Theravada monastery). His recent book Mind is What Matters⊠for example at ~pp30-34. Iâm referring to the printed version, PDF pagination seems to be the same though.
Returning to the OffG article, I must reread this, but didnât find it revelatory. Power is always relative, and relations of force are always implicated. Those with power tend not to need to use force because the whole System favours them anyway. They resort to it, though, when resistance builds, and attempts to coerce people to accept covid gene therapies are THE example of this right now. The shrill aggression of the salariat when their âscienceâ is questioned is symptomatic of this.