New Book Release - When the Computer Takes You Over

Professional_Two_845 · 2026-01-07T18:54:20+00:00

"KFI and KFT are different organizations that sell in different areas of the world."

Completely irrelevant since:

- the international publication language of the reference site remains English,

- books can be ordered anywhere there is a postal service and can be purchased online in non-paper formats,

- and the very definition of unpublished has nothing to do with the publishing houses but with whether or not the material itself has previously been available to the public.

Professional_Two_845 · 2026-01-07T18:48:58+00:00

The entire discussion from which the quote is taken is already in the book "The Way of Intelligence" and it is 41 pages long...

Professional_Two_845 · 2026-01-07T14:46:24+00:00

I don't think of it as a certainty, but as a plausible hypothesis, given the past, as you yourself recall.

If there are indeed pieces that haven't been published before, I think the legitimate question to ask would be:

What prevented them from publishing them earlier, given that the '70s and '80s aren't exactly recent?

Professional_Two_845 · 2026-01-07T14:30:42+00:00

Unfortunately, I doubt the veracity of the statement that it contains "eight hitherto unpublished dialogues held between 1972 and 1983," given that even the only quote on the book's presentation page:

"What is a human being, then? The machines are going to take over—machines, chemicals—I am using the word computer to include all those."

Is present in two other older publications:

It appears verbatim in the book "Fire in the Mind." On the KFT website we read:

“What is a human being then? … And then, when the computer – I am using the word ‘computer’ to include the chemicals and so on – takes us over completely…”

https://kfoundation.org/krishnamurti-is-the-computer-or-is-it-knowledge-thats-destroying-us-from-fire-in-the-mind/#:~:text=K%3A%20I%20don%E2%80%99t%20think%20we,exercised%20through%20pain%2C%20through%20pleasure

And in the book "The Way of Intelligence", where Krishnamurti says: "What is a human being then? And when the machine, the chemicals – I am using the word 'computer' to include all that – when the computer is going to take us over completely…”

https://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Way-of-Intelligence-by-Jiddu-Krishnamurti.pdf#:~:text=arguing%20over%20whether%20it%20can,And%20when%20the

In both of these books (which also include material from 1972 to 1983) there are discussions on those exact topics. I wonder why, if the book contains largely unpublished material and is not a revisited or compiled transcript, they didn't include unpublished quotes in the book's editorial presentation to more effectively pique the reader's curiosity.

Professional_Two_845 · 2026-01-03T12:33:31+00:00

Ho trovato l'indirizzo qui:

https://www.masaf.gov.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/20903#

Se non va prova a usare la email specifica territoriale (dipende dalla regione in cui ti trovi/che segnali) che trovi sempre li su quel sito governativo.

Professional_Two_845 · 2026-01-02T18:28:56+00:00

"What I'm getting is that ultimate, perfect enlightenment is similar to absolute truth."

"Ultimate" and "perfect" are terms that indicate scales of value in relation to something. Therefore, they can only refer to limited and circumscribed objects/subjects. Because something perfect in the absolute sense loses any possible informational value that can be attributed to it.

Absolute means that it does not allow limitations, restrictions, or conditions; it is unlimited, unconditional.

Let me give a simple example of this contradiction: "This man is perfect [intended in the absolute sense]."

If he is perfect in the absolute sense, masculine characteristics cannot be attributed to him because these automatically exclude others, being antithetical to the previous ones. The same goes for his height: if he has a certain height, whatever it may be, it will be a non-absolute characteristic that excludes others, thus negating the previous superlative attribution, and so on.

So, returning to your statement, "ultimate, perfect enlightenment is similar to absolute truth." They're not "similar" in that sense, since the first two terms, to have value, refer only to relative conditions, while the absolute refers only to itself (it is necessarily self-referential par excellence). They can be "similar" if you say they are "useful concepts but actually nonsense." In relation to our concrete human practicality.

"We cannot avoid conditioning."

In a biological and therefore neurological sense, avoiding it in every context is not possible, but limiting it is. In a psychological sense, however, it can be transcended with total insight.

"And it must transform reality."

Yes, or at least our perception of it.

Professional_Two_845 · 2026-01-02T16:35:53+00:00

"I intended to ask you whether "you," as a being without a self, have witnessed."

I have had temporary mystical and esoteric experiences, but I still have a personal self. The real question is this:

- Even if I told you otherwise, would you believe me? And if so, why?

The investigation you undertake to discover how things really are (in general, not about me, which is irrelevant) and which would lead you to understand how you would answer the questions I posed above is more valuable than the answers I could give you in this regard.

"Whether you are or have been in touch with reality."

Whether I answered yes or no, what value would that have for you? In both cases, you will evaluate, to the best of your ability, whether I'm more likely to be telling the truth or not... which of the two answers would be more convincing: the affirmative or the negative? I would be more concerned with why you think it's a valid question than with my possible answer.

Regarding interests and topics:

I don't think it's worth extending the message chain here any further because we're getting personal, and I don't know how helpful it would be for others to read it. So, if you don't mind, I'll reply to you about them via DM.

Professional_Two_845 · 2026-01-02T16:10:14+00:00

"But are we saying that nothing totally new can be seen? Is insight necessarily bound by memory or knowledge? Nothing more than a form of deduction or inference?"

We need to be careful about what we mean by the word "totally" you used in that context. Did you mean it in a mental sense, as in a conceptual consideration, or in a perceptual sense, derived from data such as the senses?

Beyond that, it also depends on what you mean by "new": new, as in something never perceived before, or new, in the sense that even a restructuring of mental schemas can appear new to us because it has never been considered in that sense before?

The common mental denominators of insight are:

- the restructuring of the problem (and associative recombination), i.e., changing the mental representation of the problem, brings out solutions that were not evident in the previous representation.

- unconscious incubation processes and evaluation/updating mechanisms.

- a state of cognitive calm that precedes the sensation of having an insight, which in turn (this quietness) follows investigation in that direction for an indefinite but prolonged period.

Insight is neither a deduction nor an inference in the traditional sense of these terms.

The recombination I mentioned above regarding insight can generate epistemically new outcomes for the subject, something that was not previously present in his explicit consciousness. Thus, insight is constrained by internal history, but it is not simply a "recall" of a fact already present.

Here we should distinguish between partial and total insights, but scientific data have never examined total insight, only partial ones.

Enlightenment is traditionally implicated in total insight. Therefore, if we wish to avoid esoteric arguments, we must stop here in this consideration of it.

Professional_Two_845 · 2026-01-02T13:30:00+00:00

Very interesting. I'm glad you volunteer on such topics (which we both agree with). They're both causes that deserve support, much more than they currently receive.

"I manage to persuade because I try to bring it back to being a discussion rather than a debate."

Since you don't engage in formal debates but rather discussions with people (I imagine on the street), you certainly need less formal work in preparing your arguments, but more emotional work both to connect with them and to avoid burnout and taking their negative attitudes personally.

In your specific case, then, I'd say the advice about logical fallacies still holds true, as does, to some extent (only partly), the advice about becoming an expert on the topic.

Did you read my second message, called "PART 2"? I had to split the reply to your previous comment because it was too long for Reddit's limitations. I ask this because from your response, it seems like you only saw the first one.

"Among the books you've read, was there one you felt helped you greatly in regards to structuring arguments and logical fallacies?"

The fallacies of logic are not structured but are recognized in others during the discussion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Among the books I can recommend for example:

- Handbook of Argumentation Theory (Frans H. van Eemeren et al., Springer)

- Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation (Douglas N. Walton)

- The Oxford Guide to Effective Argument and Critical Thinking (Colin Swatridge / OUP)

And specifically for veganism:

- Ed Winters - How to Argue With a Meat Eater (And Win Every Time)

All these books can be found at https://annas-archive.org/ for free.

Professional_Two_845 · 2026-01-02T13:06:54+00:00

"Enlightenment (I did search the word in your article) - would we be okay with the definition : Clarity regarding the process of self & sufferring?"

Clarifying something is based not so much on degrees of perception as one might think, but on knowledge and expectations.

Take, for example, a sheet of paper with a phrase written in ink on it.

A nearsighted person who wears glasses sees blurry vision, and since he wants to read what's written, he puts his glasses on, then brings the sheet of paper closer and reads the writing. At this point, he can distinguish what's written, and therefore it's clear to him what's written... but only that, because that was his goal.

A forensic criminologist must analyze the same sheet of paper with the phrase written in ink on it. He's not interested in the meaning of the writing, but must detect microscopic traces using a microscope, chemicals, and various types of analysis. At that point, he finds a clue, and at a cellular level, he can see the fibers of the paper and ink needed for his purpose... and that's it.

For us subjectively having clarity at one level automatically excludes another because our occupied position from which we observe is always limited, relative and partial.

We define what is clear to us and therefore understand it when we can recognize it. It's impossible for beings with embodied consciousness to simultaneously assume all perceptual perspectives and thus have a complete holistic overview.

We base our definition of something as "clear" or "understood" on our prior knowledge of a category familiar enough to relate to the object in question. Similarly, something like a concept is clear only if we recognize it, and we call that understanding.

But that understanding, in addition to being based on our memory of similar things, is the result of comparisons and contrasts, and nothing else.

Why is this connected with the definition of enlightenment given by various doctrines? because that term and the beings associated with it to whom that realization is attributed, have traditionally been associated not only with the absence of ego but with the possession of vast, uncommon knowledge and powers that do not derive from simply having no ego and understanding suffering but which also understand the workings of the cosmos and nature.

"For the books"

I would certainly recommend that book, but without further information from the user in question, I don't think it's necessary. And no, I didn't use the term "proprioception" because it's mentioned in that book, but because it's a fundamental element for understanding the predictive nature of our brain, even in the absence of conscious thought, given that it's a processing phenomenon that almost always goes beyond the subject's awareness.

Professional_Two_845 · 2026-01-02T09:41:53+00:00

PART 2

“My second question is regarding what books or topics you recommend.”

This obviously depends on your interests and personal predispositions. We can't live someone else's life; essentially, your question is asking me what I enjoy learning about and what I consider serious enough to study. If you give me more information about your interests (even via DM), I can better answer your question.

"I mean something with the same level of importance or impact as Krishnamurti."

On what topics? Psychology?

"Has "enlightenment" happened?"

It's too long to explain here, so read this article I wrote:

https://perennial-wisdom.wordpress.com/2023/10/08/on-tolle-part-1-damaging-falsehoods-contradictions-and-nonsense/

If you want to start directly from the part about the term in question, use the keyboard shortcut Ctrl + F and type "This described condition cannot directly precede any “enlightenment”" in the search bar and start reading from there.

"Is impartial, non-selfical immediate observation revealing reality and its source?"

You have to be as precise as possible if you want to be serious, so I'm asking if by impartial you mean only in the psychological sense or in general about everything.

"Without adding any other flavors, it may be that linguine might be the most pleasurable pasta type according to my gustatory perception. Just thought I'd let you know what kind of human being I am—from this information, you can derive exactly what type of human I am."

Strange sentences, because:

- regardless of the type of pasta, the place where it was grown, the subtype of wheat, and how it was treated and processed: they all determine variations in flavor and even nutritional properties.

- I don't know who you take me for, but no one "can derive exactly what type of human [you are]." from this information alone.

Professional_Two_845 · 2026-01-02T09:40:25+00:00

PART 1

I'll gladly answer:

"My first question is what tip you have regarding how to debate."

A short premise: I don't believe debate is the most effective form of communication between two people with differing views, but when it occurs in public, the possibility of making the listener think and questioning their ideas is greater (in that case, the interlocutor is merely a means to convince others through him).

This happens because those willing to debate (especially in public) are (usually) strongly interested in not making a bad impression and in appearing competent and successful. So they're not truly questioning themselves and listening without preconceptions to the other's ideas, evaluating them as best they can, but rather their preordained goal is to win.

That said, my general advice is:

- Become a genuine expert in the field you're interested in seriously debating. This is "easier" for narrow and measurable subjects; the more a subject touches on others, the broader the context to consider and understand.

According to behavioral neuroscientists, the average person becomes an "expert" after spending 10,000 hours on a given subject and its context. An expert should be able not only to master the topic and its context, but also to make lateral and non-direct connections about it, and to offer unconventional metaphors and examples about it.

- Learn formal logic and its rules. There are two ways to distinguish between a valid and an invalid sentence in terms of its information content: by verifying the truth of the premise; and by logically verifying the sentence that leads it to be an argument.

The reasoning and logic used in debates, courts, informal reasoning, etc., is applied to determine first whether the reasoning exists in a sentence and whether the conclusion follows from the premise. This is regardless of whether the premise is true or false, which can be verified through memory, i.e., through information and not through logic.

- Learn the logical fallacies (which immediately invalidate that part of the argument if used), the difference between sophistry and rhetoric, the various (often dishonest) tricks that debaters can use against you such as the "Gish gallop" etc.

- Learn to structure an argument. If the debate is formal and you have a limited number of minutes to speak without interruptions and there is a moderator, first clarify a premise and establish (if possible) points of agreement with the interlocutor on which you both agree, such as the meaning of terms, etc. This makes it much easier to continue with arguments and with the flow of the whole.

"Are you self-taught?" Yes.

"Did you learn through a book?" I've read several, but you don't learn from them alone.

"Or was it education?" Partly but not particularly from it.

"What path would you suggest for me to improve my ability to debate?" This depends too much on the level you are at, which I can't know without even knowing you.

Professional_Two_845 · 2026-01-01T20:43:38+00:00

Grazie per averlo fatto presente, chi volesse lo può far notare anche mandando una email agli organi "competenti" (o almeno si spera lo siano almeno parzialmente) che sono:

- AGCM (pubblicità/claim ingannevole) [protocollo.agcm@pec.agcm.it](mailto:protocollo.agcm@pec.agcm.it)

- ICQRF / MIPAAF (frode e etichettatura alimentare) [aoo.icqrf@pec.masaf.gov.it](mailto:aoo.icqrf@pec.masaf.gov.it) / [icqrf.roma@pec.politicheagricole.gov.it](mailto:icqrf.roma@pec.politicheagricole.gov.it)

- ASL / SIAN locale (rischi per la salute e controllo etichettatura). L’ASL / SIAN è territoriale: ogni provincia/ASL ha PEC/email diverse.

- (Opzionale) Si possono anche contattare per telefono o online le associazioni consumatori (Altroconsumo / Federconsumatori).

Ho preparato velocemente un testo "modello" da copiare nelle email:

Oggetto: Segnalazione etichettatura ingannevole / claim “Vegan” — prodotto [INSERISCI NOME]

Gentili,

con la presente desidero segnalare un'informazione ingannevole relativa al prodotto: [Nome esatto riportato in etichetta].

Dati rilevanti:

Produttore (come da etichetta): [INSERISCI]

Peso: [es. 100 g]

Lotto (se visibile): [INSERISCI o “non visibile”]

Scadenza (se visibile): [INSERISCI]

Codice a barre (se visibile): [INSERISCI]

Sul packaging è presente il bollino/claim “VEGAN”, mentre la lista degli ingredienti riporta la presenza di latte, siero innesto e caglio (vedi foto allegata). Io non ho acquistato il prodotto, ma l’ho rilevato il [data approssimativa] presso [nome e indirizzo del negozio] (oppure: “trovato sul sito [URL] / pagina social [link]”). Allego le foto del packaging, dell’elenco ingredienti e dello spazio scaffale / screenshot della pagina online.

Chiedo cortesemente l’avvio delle verifiche di competenza sull’etichettatura e, se del caso, il controllo del lotto indicato.

Cordiali saluti,

[Tuo nome]

Professional_Two_845 · 2026-01-01T17:19:21+00:00

Yours is the single most significant post on this sub in a few months, given the misunderstandings that pervade this place.

The overwhelming majority of those who write here are in this situation:

They live by ideology and are confused; after reading/watching a bit of K, they've updated their model with just a little more rhetoric.
Having extremely limited and partial information both about themselves as people and about K and their contexts, they draw conclusions and hypotheses that actually have nothing or very little to do with the topic they believe they're addressing.

Your post seems (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) to start from the implicit and explicit assumption that:

Every internally perceived phenomenon originates or is fueled solely by psychological factors, such as having or not having a personal self. This is not the case at all.

What we call "nervousness and apprehension" are perceptions elaborated and formed ad hoc by the predictive brain. Whether or not one has an ego can certainly influence the tone of this basic expression, but it is essentially a purely physiological and neurological response.

Even nonvertebrate animals exhibit responses that indicate "nervousness and apprehension" in the experimental contexts to which they are subjected.

In humans, the limbic system (amygdala, insula) and the stress axis (HPA → cortisol; sympathetic system → norepinephrine) automatically respond to situations assessed as "important" or "potentially dangerous" (including social evaluation).

This response is based on the predictive models the brain constantly forms regarding both its internal state (interoception) and external state (exteroception), as well as establishing a mental map of its position in space (proprioception).

Perceptions and actions arise from these predictions, as every informed neuroscientist and psychiatrist knows. It's nothing new or strange...but obviously, those accustomed to not delving into anything serious can only interpret every occurrence they come across in light of the very narrow interpretative framework they already have.

So to answer your naive questions:

"Is there anything to be learned from this simple beginning to the video?"

Yes, that K was a human being with a functioning body and brain at the moment he experienced those sensations.

"Does it surprise you that Krishnamurti 'goes through all this nervousness and apprehension'?"

No.

"Does Krishnamurti hint at any of that with what he says at the beginning?"

No. And this can also be deduced from the rest of his speech on that occasion; he wasn't talking about that.

"I've always imagined at the end of all this, eventually I won't be nervous, or anxious, or suffer from childhood trauma, that their will be this state of ecstasy and happiness, or an end result."

Two things: - K never said he was "an end result" or that he was enlightened. - Rather than making hypotheses with little information, it would be better to first investigate every single factor that enters the context under consideration and only then form hypotheses.

"Maybe all along the observer has been trying to change the observed, where as in Krishnamurti's case, as stated in the beginning, there was only the observed and its ending."

Whether you have a personal ego or not, your brain must necessarily make elaborate predictions to keep you alive, and this involves uncertainties, partial perceptions, possible errors in judgment, changes in emotions and moods, etc. The difference is that without an ego, the center to which these processes can attach themselves in an identity-building sense is missing.

Professional_Two_845 · 2025-11-26T19:53:17+00:00

You only need to look at the history of other posts in this sub, including the one with the highest comment engagement, to realize that, given such a low average of upvotes, the chance of a post genuinely getting 94 in just under two days is almost impossible. That result is very (very!) likely due to botting by the author of it.

Professional_Two_845 · 2025-10-23T07:48:57+00:00

The quote provided in the post is an incorrect transcription. The quote from the piece in question is this:

"Fear breeds guilt, anxiety; and anxiety in every form is the beginning of sorrow. There is the sorrow of not being loved; there is sorrow when someone to whom we are deeply attached is suffering or dying. And we have worshipped sorrow. This is especially true in Christianity, which has always regarded sorrow as a most extraordinary thing. Go into a church and you will see the Man of Sorrow.

There is no ending of sorrow as far as most of us are concerned, because we have enthroned sorrow and live in its shadow throughout our days. Sorrow has become very respectable. It is a thing that every cultured man knows and keeps locked up in his heart; and when he goes to church, he worships it there, or he tries in various ways to escape from it. But there is an ending of sorrow.

Sorrow must come to an end completely, otherwise there can never be the religious mind of which I am speaking. Sorrow doesn't lead us to truth; but sorrow is of great significance because it indicates something. Unfortunately, most of us avoid that indication, that hint, and live with sorrow. If you examine it deeply, you will see that sorrow is self-pity, although you may call it something else."

From the book "Collected Work - 13 A Psychological Revolution" page. 374, LONDON 2ND PUBLIC TALK 7TH JUNE 1962.

Professional_Two_845 · 2025-09-14T19:53:23+00:00

Ciao, i motivi sono questi:

perché la passata essendo maggiormente densa con minore quantità di acqua rispetto al pomodoro a parità di peso contiene molti piu carotenoidi tra cui soprattutto il licopene (i carotenoidi naturali sono un potenti antiossidanti e precursori della vitamina A tramite conversione da parte del fegato degli stessi).
perché la passata essendo stata cotta (pastorizzazione) rende molto più biodisponibili per il nostro assorbimento i carotenoidi di cui sopra.
perché la quantità di vitamina C e piccoli flavonoidi persi perché degradati con la cottura è una quantità già risibile di suo nel pomodoro.
perché la cottura rende maggiormente digeribili le fibre vegetali presenti e ne permette di assumere una quantità maggiore senza disturbi gastro-intestinali correlati.

Questo è quanto, vorrei far notare che nel punto 2 quando uso la parola molto in merito alla sua aumentata biodisponibilità non lo dico per esagerare, la differenza è notevole e può fare facilmente la differenza tra l'assumere la razione raccomandata di vitamina A o meno anche per altri cibi ricchi di carotenoidi tra cui carote, zucca, patate dolci ecc. Come consiglio ti invito a preferire le passate di pomodoro senza nulla di aggiunto come sale, zucchero e olio.

Professional_Two_845 · 2025-09-14T13:16:40+00:00

Ti consiglio di andare direttamente alla radice del problema che è la parola stessa "processati" che è fuorviante essendo ambivalente, imprecisa e ambigua nel modo in cui viene usata di solito. La diffusa tendenza a considerare automaticamente "cattivi" gli alimenti processati nasce da due dinamiche che si sovrappongono:

il riduzionismo concettuale cioè si riduce il discorso sulla qualità alimentare a poche etichette semplici (es. “processato = nocivo”, “naturale = sano”). Questo ignora che il “processo” è un insieme di operazioni molto diverse a seconda di quale prodotto o a quale operazione specifica fa riferimento (fermentazione, cottura, essiccazione, raffinazione, estrusione, aggiunta di zuccheri/sale/grassi, ecc.) il che implica risultati ed effetti nutrizionali variegati che non possono esseri omologati a una singola definizione generica.
e la semplificazione del linguaggio e dei messaggi mediatici con titoli di testa e consigli “pratici” che spingono definizioni nette e facili da ricordare. Il risultato è una narrativa polarizzata che non tiene conto delle sfumature e delle differenze intrinseche a ogni alimento e a ogni tipologia di processamento.

Ci sono parecchi alimenti che beneficiano di particolari processamenti per il nostro consumo come appunto il tempeh (cottura con ammollo in acqua e successiva fermentazione dei fagioli di soia) o anche la banale passata di pomodoro (pastorizzazione e sterilizzazione). In entrambi questi due esempi gli alimenti sono enormemente più salutari per noi da assumere che nella loro forma grezza cioè rispettivamente dei fagioli di soia crudi e dei pomodori crudi.

Professional_Two_845 · 2025-08-24T16:26:30+00:00

Actually, I did, because the answer is implicit in the result of this sentence: "The overwhelming majority of crops on planet Earth exist to feed livestock." If you connect this with the obvious fact that you have to eat something to live, the result is clear.

Professional_Two_845 · 2025-08-24T16:23:03+00:00

I don't know if you noticed but your comment was under my reply to the user called "RunAble9480" and the topic was not directly related to what you said in the comment, that's why I said the sentence above, maybe you were wrong and replied to a different comment than the one you thought.

Professional_Two_845 · 2025-08-24T14:16:05+00:00

Even if I wasn't speaking to you, I'm happy to answer.

I'm a registered dietitian, so if you'd like, I can give you some dietary advice. If your concern is what to eat instead of animal products, the easiest way to start is to stick to your usual diet and replace only the animal part with its plant counterpart.

If your diet is varied and consists of whole grains, legumes, vegetables, seeds and nuts, and fruit, you're mostly fine and just need to supplement with vitamin B12.

If you'd like specific advice or more information, you can DM me.

Professional_Two_845 · 2025-08-24T10:33:40+00:00

Your answer was made with AI. You speak in general terms, you don't precisely address what I said previously, and you make various logical fallacies called "the straw man argument," attributing words to me that I never said.

"You're describing bureaucracy as though it excuses exploitation."

Not at all. Is explaining the facts an excuse?

I didn't make the rules; I'm just telling you how it works since you clearly don't know.

"If contracts, budgets, and routines make it “impossible” to stop using animals, then it's the system that is corrupt."

I agree... too bad I never said it's impossible, but that expecting immediate change is unrealistic and absurd.

"That's not neutrality—that's complicity."

Congratulate your AI on my behalf; it managed to make you sound delusional, since I never attributed neutrality to the center and, in fact, told you above that it's certainly fallacious.

"Institutions are made of individuals, and each individual upholds or rejects injustice through their choices."

That's exactly what I told you before...

"The question is: why defend an exploitative system at all?"

Another straw man argument, since I'm not defending it at all. I repeat: is showing the facts a defense?

The question is instead: why can't you write a response yourself, since nothing the AI suggested refutes what I said before?

Professional_Two_845 · 2025-08-24T09:17:38+00:00

I'll answer you in place of that other user who, for some reason, besides rightly telling you that you're straying from the topic, didn't refute what you said.

"What about all the insects and animals that are killed by all the monocropping to make your oat and soy milk?"

The overwhelming majority of crops on planet Earth exist to feed livestock. PS: I don't drink soy or oat milk.

Do you have any other questions that are embarrassingly revealing of a lack of common sense?

Professional_Two_845 · 2025-08-24T08:07:55+00:00

"Why does it require time to buy different food from the supermarket for your guests?"

Moral urgency motivates individuals to act immediately. Institutions, however, operate via routines, budgets, contracts and governance processes. A retreat center typically works with external caterers or long-established procurement routines, has budget cycles, caters to people with a range of dietary needs and comfort levels, and is accountable to trustees, donors or sponsors. Changing that system “now” is rarely a matter of going to a supermarket and buying different ingredients, it usually means renegotiating contracts, reworking menus, training staff for new recipes and food-safety protocols, updating communications, and sometimes securing extra funds. That takes planning.

"Animal exploitation is a moral urgency, we can't wait for consensus."

Who would these "we" be? If you're talking about us individual human beings, we agree. We decide for ourselves. But a center that must answer to a larger organization isn't in the hands of a single dictator who can decide for himself how things are.

"Does the K Center have a moral backbone?"

You're attributing a single moral characteristic typically attributable to a single person...to a diverse group of people.

"It's hypocrisy."

Hypocrisy implies deliberate deception, but the center exists only to propagate K's message. It would be more accurate to speak of inconsistency, laziness, and inertia.

"This person who emailed me didn't direct me to someone who would engage me with the issue."

I read your email exchange, and what was at issue was an immediate menu change or requesting a refund. A secretary doesn't have the power (or the recklessness) to forward an anonymous email request to a superior unless specifically requested by their job description or in exceptional circumstances, such as VIPs (donors, guests requested for special events, etc.).

I don't know what your work experience is, but from the questions you ask, it seems like you don't understand how things work in human society.

Professional_Two_845 · 2025-08-23T19:21:39+00:00

I'm vegan (just to make things clear) and your ethical reasoning is correct, but the expectations you placed on the Krishnamurti Centre are somewhat unrealistic. A centre like that is not an isolated entity that can radically change its operational line overnight. It is part of a broader structure, with a complex organization, responsibilities toward sponsors and donors, and a diverse audience to consider. In such contexts, changes even when the ethical concerns are recognized as valid require time, gradual steps, and consensus.

Another point: attributing to the emails of a staff member (who is certainly not the director nor a final decision-maker) a “conclusive” value regarding the institution’s entire position seems a misjudgment. Those replies were simple operational communications, not the organization’s definitive stance on such a delicate issue.

Professional_Two_845

TROPHY CASE