Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
A Quiet Space | moderated by Clive Elwell

All one inquiry


Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 338 in total
Thu, 06 Dec 2018 #91
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4828 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
there would be no wars if we were wholly satisfied with our daily needs. But we are not."

And we would not be destroying ourselves and the environment.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 07 Dec 2018 #92
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1107 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
K.:there would be no wars if we were wholly satisfied with our daily needs. But we are not."

So why are we not 'satisfied' with our daily needs? (Because we're not cattle, or pigs or birds?) Why are humans not satisfied with just our daily needs?

It is mind boggling to contemplate a world where humans could actually live together peacefully, without war and with a level of equality. What one person is 'satisfied' with now can be quite different than what would satisfy another. And the ones who want 'more' will vanquish those who try to keep it from them...So it seems to me that our 'desires' can not be 'regulated' by any outside entity like a form of government or moral code but only by a fundamental change in us. Which means the ending of 'greed' and desire which is the result of seeing ourselves as 'individuals'. Could such a radical change come about before we destroy ourselves and many forms around us? Obviously it can't unless that change can take place in me. That would be the first step it seems to me.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 08 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 07 Dec 2018 #93
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4828 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:

So why are we not 'satisfied' with our daily needs? (Because we're not cattle, or pigs or birds?) Why are humans not satisfied with just our daily needs?

One answer is that we are conditioned not to be. The whole thrust of our upbringing, education, is to compete, to be ambitious, to strive for more. But this is not a complete answer. Why are our teachers, parents, those who conditioned us, themselves conditioned into ambition?

Another answer is that it is natural to improve one’s conditions materially – at least it was for our cave-men ancestors. And like all the natural movements, it became internalised into the psyche. As thought developed (I presume with the development of the cortex) the self developed, through a process of identification. It identified with the process of material development, with all the terrible consequences of that.

It is mind boggling to contemplate a world where humans could actually live together peacefully, without war and with a level of equality.

Yes. Actually I find it deeply moving. Whenever I have read Aldous Huxley’s book “Island” I can be reduced to tears, just to contemplate that human beings could live together sanely, intellegently, with compassion for each other, and all focused on the need for self-understanding and transformation.

What one person is 'satisfied' with now can be quite different than what would satisfy another.

But isn’t that satisfaction always an image? Real satisfaction is always short-lived, is it not? The desire for more quickly reasserts itself. Look at those who gain a billion dollars, and then immediately set their sights on a second billion.

And the ones who want 'more' will vanquish those who try to keep it from them...So it seems to me that our 'desires' can not be 'regulated' by any outside entity like a form of government or moral code but only by a fundamental change in us. Which means the ending of 'greed' and desire which is the result of seeing ourselves as 'individuals'. Could such a radical change come about before we destroy ourselves and many forms around us?

Well, this is the question, isn’t it? The crucial question for mankind, although very few are considering it. If I have to answer yes or no, I would say, after much study of the world, NO.

All the evidence – the scientific evidence, not the propaganda, is pointing to terrible environmental collapse, the destruction of most varieties of life on the planet, and the breakdown of society, the structures that have kept the majority of us at least supplied with the basic necessities of life. This is happening now, it not some prediction for the future. I don’t think I have to produce figures. And what is being revealed is mankind's inability to act, to get together to solve the existential threats. He doesn't seem to even care very much.

In Krishnamurti’s first talk at Madras in 1973 he talks of the necessity for mankind’s survival, but how much more dire is the situation now than then?

If anyone can show me how this perception is wrong, I’d be very very happy to hear it.

Obviously it can't unless that change can take place in us.

Just to clarify, who are you referring to as “us”, Dan?

That would be the first step it seems to me.

Perhaps strangely, despite my pessimism – I would not call it pessimism, but realism – I still accept the responsibility of a fundamental change in myself. What else is there? And I certainly cannot rely on anyone else. Of course such acceptance does not show one ‘how’ to change. it’s not a matter of applying greater effort. There is no method. I suppose this is is similar to K’s “truth is a pathless land”.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 07 Dec 2018 #94
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1107 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Just to clarify, who are you referring to as “us”, Dan?

Me, you and anyone else interested in what we speak about here.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Dec 2018 #95
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2437 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

K.:there would be no wars if we were wholly satisfied with our daily needs. But we are not."
So why are we not 'satisfied' with our daily needs? (Because we're not cattle, or pigs or birds?) Why are humans not satisfied with just our daily needs?

Tom:
Pleasure? Is the whole thrust of the self the pursuit of pleasure and fulfillment....and more, more, more, because we are never satisfied? Also the pursuit of psychological security? All this is based upon thought/memory, of course.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Dec 2018 #96
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1107 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Pleasure? Is the whole thrust of the self the pursuit of pleasure and fulfillment....and more, more, more, because we are never satisfied? Also the pursuit of psychological security? All this is based upon thought/memory, of course.

Is it like this: the driving force to live , to continue, has passed from every cell in the physical body into the psychological? 'I' want to continue because the alternative is oblivion? 'I' see death all around me in nature but hear no objections from there...only from me, a human saying in effect 'I' should not end, 'I' am somehow special and above all that...?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Dec 2018 #97
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4828 posts in this forum Offline

I was with the person I mentioned in #75 above, yesterday. He really just wants to discuss domestic issues, but rather deliberately, as an experiment really, I tried to bring up the issue of climate change. In the past he has been somewhat of a denier. I repeated something I had read earlier in the day:

The last time that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were this high the sea level was about five to 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher than normal. Average temperatures were roughly 3 to 4 degrees Celsius (5.4 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than today – except that North and South poles were even warmer still – as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) hotter than today. This was 3 – 5 million years ago.

The figures are from the NASA website.

It is frightening to see human being avoid the facts, just turn away from them, but that is what happened with him. And if the people I meet are a representative sample, that is what the vast majority of people are doing, in various ways. Just carrying on, in the belief that they will be able to keep carrying on. And their children can carry on in the same way. I don’t know what it will take, what sort of catastrophe, to shake this assumption.

Sometimes the only word that seems to describe the human species is insane.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Dec 2018 #98
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4828 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Pleasure? Is the whole thrust of the self the pursuit of pleasure and fulfillment....and more, more, more, because we are never satisfied? Also the pursuit of psychological security? All this is based upon thought/memory, of course.

Certainly the pursuit of pleasure and security are integral to the self. And they are not entirely separate, of course. But which is cause and which is effect?

There is the pursuit of physical security, which all life does, although ultimately it fails, with death. (Which make my post above even more puzzling). But as you say, psychological security is based on idea, and that is entirely different. It is the pursuit of phantoms.

I think the desire for security is a major issue for mankind, and for each individual. It is absolutely necessary, and yet it seems unobtainable. We act in entirely the opposite direction. How can it be found? Not in the things of thought, I am sure - although thought has a role to play, as in the development of medicine and surgery. K says it is found in the operation of intelligence, but how is this intelligence to be come upon? Thought, psychologically, is the essence of unintelligence, isn't it? As was said above, it is insane.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Dec 2018 #99
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4828 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is it like this: the driving force to live , to continue, has passed from every cell in the physical body into the psychological?

That is a penetrating way of putting it, Dan.

Dan McDermott wrote:
'I' want to continue because the alternative is oblivion?

Yes, that is certainly a movement. But that seems to imply that there is no 'way out', if the self will always act so as to continue itself.

Would you say that actually the self is always ending, always dying? Because it is composed of thought, and each thought has its existence, its duration, and then can but end? But often this is not seen. Is it in the seeing of this fact that the 'way out' lies?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Dec 2018 #100
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1107 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Would you say that actually the self is always ending, always dying? Because it is composed of thought, and each thought has its existence, its duration, and then can but end? But often this is not seen. Is it in the seeing of this fact that the 'way out' lies?

This is the mystery of 'identification'. What you say about each thought that it has a birth and a death is true,..but something (the 'I'?) sees not birth/death but an illusory continuity of itself. Is that the 'trick' of the thinker? That he feels himself to be the author, responsible for each and every thought, when in actuality, they simply arise and disappear on their own?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Dec 2018 #101
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2437 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: But as you say, psychological security is based on idea, and that is entirely different. It is the pursuit of phantoms.

And the pursuit of an idea or ideal leads to all our inner and worldly conflicts, which just exacerbates our insecurity. The idea that I very badly want to be a great tennis star is in opposition to the fact that I’m not really that talented at the sport. Or the fact that I might be better off spending my time on my studies....or with my family. Or the fact that I’m tired today and really don’t want to practice. Same would go for trying to be a great artist, writer, musician, and so on. Trying to be a great artist is pursuing an idea (”phantom “). Painting for the shear joy of it is not.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 09 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Dec 2018 #102
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2437 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: but something (the 'I'?) sees not birth/death but an illusory continuity of itself. Is that the 'trick' of the thinker?

T: Yes, he doesn’t realize he is just a thought....he thinks ‘he’ is directing his thoughts and actions. This trick of thought is very pervasive!

Been having trouble with quote function on my iPad. The website doesn’t work that well with iOS 11 apparently.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 09 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Dec 2018 #103
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4828 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is that the 'trick' of the thinker? That he feels himself to be the author, responsible for each and every thought, when in actuality, they simply arise and disappear on their own?

I think so. But this perception/idea does not stand up to the light of awareness, does it?

Watching some documentary recently, it suddenly came to me that the general conception of the self, the ego, is quite different from how I have come to see it, and probably most people who have been exposed to K. It certainly is not seen as something created by thought. To them it actually exists, and it can be strong or weak, up or down. Problems are generally seen as originating from a 'weak' ego (we could go into what that means) and the solution - including solutions prescribed by psychoanalysts, counselors, and the like, is to somehow strengthen, enlarge the ego. It is really a matter of so called self esteem. So psychological problems are seen as a matter of replacing low self esteem with higher self esteem.

Do people agree with that analysis? So called 'positive thinking', as opposed to 'negative thinking' comes into it.

Yet fundamentally, is not all that stuff a movement in illusion?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Dec 2018 #104
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4828 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
And the pursuit of an idea or ideal leads to all our inner and worldly conflicts, which just exacerbates our insecurity.

How would you explain to a person, say a politician, a social activist, that their pursuit of security, order, only brings about more disorder, less security, Tom?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Dec 2018 #105
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4828 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Yes, he doesn’t realize he is just a thought..

This seems to be the essence of the human problem.

So how does thought realise its limitations, its true nature? Really realise it, not just as an idea?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Dec 2018 #106
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2437 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
How would you explain to a person, say a politician, a social activist, that their pursuit of security, order, only brings about more disorder, less security, Tom?

I think it's pretty obvious how identification with a political party leads to disorder....the liberal vs the conservative, right wing vs left, etc. Same goes for nationalism or my religion vs. your religion. The social activist may be a different story. He may be working to improve working conditions in the factory or to get affordable housing for the poor, or to protect the air or water from pollution, etc, etc. That’s not necessarily the pursuit of psychological security.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 10 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Dec 2018 #107
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2437 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

Yes, he doesn’t realize he is just a thought..
This seems to be the essence of the human problem.

Can you elaborate on how this is so?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Dec 2018 #108
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4828 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

Clive:Yes, he doesn’t realize he is just a thought.. This seems to be the essence of the human problem.

Can you elaborate on how this is so?

elaborate on not realising one is just a thought, or on how this is the essence of the human problem?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Dec 2018 #109
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2437 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
elaborate on not realising one is just a thought, or on how this is the essence of the human problem?

On the latter part. Is that what keeps the fragments (me vs. not me) battling with one another? This is the crucial issue, I would agree....the fragmentation in consciousness and therefore division and conflict/violence in the world/society.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 10 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Dec 2018 #110
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4828 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
And the pursuit of an idea or ideal leads to all our inner and worldly conflicts, which just exacerbates our insecurity.

It came to me recently, looking at so-called political action, when action is based on an idea, an ideology, then it is not a response to the actuality of the problem, not grounded in fact. No wonder we are in such a mess. Holding a belief system should automatically disqualify a politician from holding office.

In any circumstances, holding to a belief, acting from belief, is insanity. But generally it is strangely respected.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Dec 2018 #111
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4828 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I think it's pretty obvious how identification with a political party leads to disorder...

You say it's pretty obvious, but it carries on, there is more and more disorder. It is the norm, it is very respectable. So it cannot be generally "obvious", although it appears to be so to you and I.

Tom Paine wrote:
The social activist may be a different story. He may be working to improve working conditions in the factory or to get affordable housing for the poor, or to protect the air or water from pollution, etc, etc. That’s not necessarily the pursuit of psychological security.

But he still has a self, does he not? Just because I engage in some charitable or social activity, that does not mean I am psychologically transformed. And, as I bought up recently, the self always seems to introduce distortion, and create more problems, no matter how 'well intentioned' it is.

I am not arguing against social action in saying this. But as a human activity, it is limited. And what is limited does not seem to solve our basic human problems.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Dec 2018 #112
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4828 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Is that what keeps the fragments (me vs. not me) battling with one another?

Why does this battle continue? Good question. The battle indicates that there is division, surely? Division in thought. Or to put it another way, thought is fragmented. So why is thought fragmented?

It seems to me that it is the very nature, the very structure of thought to be fragmented. I cannot really imagine how it would be if it were NOT fragmented. The way I have always explained it to myself is that a thought stems from a particular experience. Each experience we have is separate, is limited, and so thoughts are always limited, and separate from each other.

We continue to have experiences, and so continue to create fragmented thought. If what I describe is accurate, then can there be a break in the chain, is there a possibility of a ‘way out’?

However, I was listening to the 8th dialogue between K and Bohm in the “Truth, Actuality, and The Limits of Thought series”, (called “What is the Substance of Thought) where they ask this question, Why is Thought Fragmented?, and they approach it differently. I will listen to it again, but basically K says it is fragmented because it comes from a centre.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Dec 2018 #113
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2437 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So why is thought fragmented?

It seems to me that it is the very nature, the very structure of thought to be fragmented.

True. Thought by its nature is composed of fragments. You can only think of one or many fragments at any moment. Thought can’t encompass the whole.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Dec 2018 #114
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2437 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: It came to me recently, looking at so-called political action, when action is based on an idea, an ideology, then it is not a response to the actuality of the problem, not grounded in fact.

Tom: Good point. And one will try to get an outcome that conforms to the belief. To alter the facts to conform to the belief.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Dec 2018 #115
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2437 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

The social activist may be a different story. He may be working to improve working conditions in the factory or to get affordable housing for the poor.... That’s not necessarily the pursuit of psychological security.

Clive: But he still has a self, does he not? Just because I engage in some charitable or social activity, that does not mean I am psychologically transformed. And, as I bought up recently, the self always seems to introduce distortion, and create more problems, no matter how 'well intentioned' it is.

T: True enough, yet.... We gave women and Blacks the right to vote in the US and ended child labor through social action. Not sure that introduced more problems. Without some kind of social action, there would still be slavery...child labor...no programs for the public welfare at all...no police or courts...no social order at all. It would be the strong eating the weak like in ancient times when the strong and powerful conquered weaker groups and killed them or made them slaves. But I do agree with your last sentence, Clive. I don’t want to dispute that. Perhaps this point could be explored further at some future time.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 11 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Dec 2018 #116
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4828 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
We gave women and Blacks the right to vote in the US and ended child labor through social action. Not sure that introduced more problems. Without some kind of social action, there would still be slavery...child labor...no programs for the public welfare at all...no police or courts...no social order at all.

There still is slavery, is there not? In fact I read that globally the number of slaves is more that it has ever been. That would include all the "trafficked people". And are there not a great number of immigrants tolling in the fields of the US, in conditions of great hardship? But they have no way out of their conditions, they have to do as they are told, or starve - are they not slaves? And are there not many children labouring in those fields?

And voting - from what I read there is a great deal of corruption in the American voting system, gerrymandering, people (mostly black) removed from the electoral role, and other such manipulation of the system.

As for the police, again from what I read poor people live in fear of them, with good reason. Human rights have been significantly removed from the populace. The courts are open to manipulation by clever lawyers, and the poor/blacks are given horrendously heavy sentences.

Tom Paine wrote:
It would be the strong eating the weak like in ancient times when the strong and powerful conquered weaker groups and killed them or made them slaves.

And now it is the rich feeding off the poor, is it not? And government completely in the hands of powerful corporations.

No matter what the nature of laws that are passed, people will find a way around them, to suit their purposes.

The point is, so-called social action is a collective form of mental control, is it not? It suffers from the thinker/thought syndrome that we spend so much time inquiring into - and rightly so. As with personal control, the controlling force is still conditioned, still corrupt. But it is given a guise of intelligence, of superior perception and morality. But it is not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Dec 2018 #117
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4828 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
And one will try to get an outcome that conforms to the belief. To alter the facts to conform to the belief.

Good point. And people's belief in god, if they have one, never seems to be shaken by the facts. After suffering the greatest catastrophe, they still pray, exhort, and apparently find some form of comfort.

i was thinking that 'Brexit', the movement to leave the EU in the UK, is a prime example of acting from ideology, with no reference to fact. Everything points to disastrous outcomes from such an action, but the endless debate and chaos goes on. but one hardly needs particular examples, they are all around us.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Dec 2018 #118
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4828 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
However, I was listening to the 8th dialogue between K and Bohm in the “Truth, Actuality, and The Limits of Thought series”, (called “What is the Substance of Thought) where they ask this question, Why is Thought Fragmented?, and they approach it differently. I will listen to it again, but basically K says it is fragmented because it comes from a centre.

I did listen again, and the discussion is exactly pertinent to what we have been discussing on the forum for some time. I do not have a retentive mind, and I would hesitate to attempt some sort of summary of the points revealed. Here is the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcF1unSQjL4&index=9&t=4586s&list=PLEbxOVEQgBpOBeBHHO4vRNOMTTKwcaGRd

And I have just found the text:

https://krishnamurti-teachings.info/ebooks/en/pdf/Krishnamurti%20and%20David%20Bohm%20-%20The%20Limits%20of%20Thought.pdf

They start with the question "Why is thought fragmented, and after about an hour bring in the issue of why thought had to create a center, and how that gives the impression of permanency. I would highly recommend a listen/read of the whole discussion.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Dec 2018 #119
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2437 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: The point is, so-called social action is a collective form of mental control

Tom: Well some good has come of it, nonetheless. Without some societal “control” the poor would be exploited to the degree they were in Medieval feudal societies....or the days of Charles Dickens’ London where there were debter’s prisons with appalling filthy conditions. And women would be virtually slaves of their husbands. There is de facto ‘wage slavery’ today, yes, but no one would choose to go back to the time when Blacks were literally owned by Whites. And Blacks DO vote in quite large numbers today, and hold elective office, and are admitted to colleges and universities and medical schools, where they were once prohibited entry. No one would choose to go back to the days when Blacks couldn’t stay in hotels, nor eat in restaurants with Whites, nor back to the days when they could be lynched for just looking at a White woman. There have been huge changes in American society when it comes to race relations. Many of them changes for the better. Of course much of what you point out is also true. American society is still horribly corrupt and violent. But social action is not totally without merit, I don’t think. It’s how we got social security and unemployment insurance and voting rights and fair labor laws, and Medicare and Medicaid, to name a few examples of social actions which have benefited many millions of Americans and hurt no one but the exploiters.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 12 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Dec 2018 #120
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2437 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
The point is, so-called social action is a collective form of mental control, is it not? It suffers from the thinker/thought syndrome that we spend so much time inquiring into - and rightly so. As with personal control, the controlling force is still conditioned, still corrupt.

Do you see it that social action must always bring further corruption, Clive? Or can social action also bring goodness...improve conditions for those who suffer? We’ve been conditioned to believe it can.....like the examples I’ve given. Yet, observing life today in the US, I wonder if we’ve really improved life for the majority. While we’ve made obvious improvements in some areas, the statistics for violent crime....for mental illness and addictions seem to show us that in some ways life may have gotten worse for many of us compared to 100 years ago...compared to my grandparents generation in the early 20th century. I don’t know....we have some elected officials who seem to sincerely want to bring about positive improvements...to end exploitation of the lower classes by the rich and powerful.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 338 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)