← Back to Kinfonet

What is the Root of Human Conflict?

What is the Root of Human Conflict, externally, as well as internally?

What leads to the belief that ‘What Is’ should be ‘Other than it actually is revealed to be in awareness’?

If we see that identification with a specific organized religion, or county leads to conflict and division, do we then register a psychological belief that “it’s wrong to do this?” And when we meet someone who has this sort of belief, do we defend this belief because it’s taken to be, “my belief,” “what I know is the truth?”

Should these persons not have the belief in a religion or country, that they actually do have? Is that ‘thought expectation’ rational or coherent?

Do these quotes below point us in the right place to explore?

K: Now, is there a division between the observer and the observed?

Bohm: We have this picture of someone inside us who is given all this information and then decides to have the intention to do something based on that. I’m suggesting however, that that is not so.

Is this belief in a chooser or observer, inside our head, reflecting what’s going on in external relationship, in the conditioning, in the thought patterns? Is there an idea that there’s a separate “chooser,” separate from the knowledge we each have, that “should be choosing” the view we believe, instead of the view they actually have?

And ‘internally’, do we have the idea that “I’m in conflict,” because we have the idea that I’m an ‘I’ separate from the opposing ideas, and ‘I’ should not have conflicting views?

Do we also assume that others should be other than they are, because we believe there’s a ‘you’ inside their head too, that’s using the information and choosing poorly? Not “choosing” to act differently than their actual views?

And what about this quote from K:

K: For centuries we have been spoon-fed by our teachers, by our authorities, by our books, our saints. We say, ‘Tell me all about it - what lies beyond the hills and the mountains and the earth?’ and we are satisfied with their descriptions, which means that we live on words and our life is shallow and empty. We are secondhand people. - Freedom From the Known

**If K is correct in suggesting this, does this failure to look for ourselves explain why we have conflicting opinions?

But again, is there an 'I" that chose these views? Is there a you that “failed to look for itself?” When did this ‘I’ choose to ‘not look for itself’? Did we choose to believe there’s a chooser inside our head? Did we choose the identity we have?
Or, are these actually commonly shared patterns in the cultural conditioning?
Would there be any conflict if there was no imagined me that should have an understanding other than what the person actually has?

David Bohm: Thought is conditioned to react somewhat as if it were a computer disk and therefore can respond extremely rapidly. It is helpful to regard thought as basically acting like a conditioned reflex. It takes time to build up the memory-based reactions, but once this is done the responses are so fast that it is difficult to see their mechanical nature.

Bohm: The principal difficulty in our whole thought process is the thought about the self - about the ego, or whatever you want to call it. The ego seems to be so important that we are ready to distort everything in order to protect it. We will deceive ourselves, engage in violence, and do all sorts of things. - Dec. 1989 Ojai Seminar

Bohm: It’s very important to see this - that this thought goes out and spreads all over the world. Other people pick it up and they make it part of their reflexes. But it’s all thought. - Thought As A System

If there is no “me”, there is no what-should-be and its corollary, what-should-not-be, leaving nothing but what-is.

**So, let’s say that you and I ‘see’ this to some extent, directly for ourselves, and, we also see that ‘the house is on fire’. Global warming, pandemics, war, vast inequality, nuclear armaments, and all sorts competing ideologies, conflict everywhere we turn, including here, etc., etc.
What are we to do? Did K offer any example? Did he just spout psychological opinions, or did he ask his audiences to inquire together with him? To each look together, for themselves?

K said “the seeing is the doing”, so if we’re not living without conflict, we haven’t really seen it.

The conflict between what-should-be and what-is precludes seeing, so until it loses power and we see it for what it is, there’s no resolution.

**So what is it that’s ‘not seen’?

We can see why the conflict between what-is and what-should-be effectually makes seeing what-is impossible, but do we understand why we’ve established this conflict in the first place? What is it about what-is that we can’t/won’t face? Is it something we know about what-is, or is it something we believe about what-is that makes facing it inconceivable?

We know there’s a lot to lose by facing the falseness of our reality, but until we’re ready to live without our illusions, we’re bound to look no farther.

Are you suggesting that if one have in insight, if I may use this word, into the fact that identification with a specific organized religion, or county leads to conflict and division, as an example, it then become a belief, a memory ? All those divisions we can see all around , all the time ? And when we express this fact, is it from memory ? Is it an actuality or a belief?

If I may ask, how do this question arise ? Or is this question arise only when there is a jugement about the fact ? When we think that what is should be ‘Other than it actually is revealed to be in awareness’?

**It’s not clear that we see this clearly, is it? If we did see this, would we still be defending beliefs and opinions? Aren’t the beliefs and opinions expectations of ‘what should be’?

**Isn’t it because ‘what is’ conflicts with the psychological beliefs we’ve collected? Why do we think life should conform to ideas in memory?

**Do we truly ‘know’, or do we take the thought projections about what might occur in some imagined future as reality?

1 Like

We demonstrate repeatedly that by living what-should-be, we create the appearance of it at the expense of what-is. This is our power, and we don’t want to lose it.

It’s not clear that we see this clearly, is it?

It’s clear that we don’t see anything clearly but the words and meanings we use to describe the false reality we live in. Clearly, we are not seeing (as K used the word), and we know from the evidence that we are living our beliefs.

We’re trying to live the best life we can imagine, instead of finding out what life is, and what part we play in it.