Power vs. Force, by David R. Hawkins, MD, PhD.
“On examination, we’ll see that power arises from meaning. It has to do with motive, and it has to do with principle. Power is always associated with that which supports the significance of life itself. It appeals to that part of human nature that we call noble – in contrast to force, which appeals to that which we call crass. Power appeals to what uplifts, dignifies, and enobles. Force must always be justified, whereas power requires no justification. Force is associated with the partial, power with the whole.
If we analyze the nature of force, it becomes readily apparent why it must always succumb to power; this is in accordance with one of the basic laws of physics. Because force automatically creates counterforce, its effect is limited by definition. We could say that force is a movement – it goes from here to there (or tries to) against opposition. Power, on the other hand, is still. It’s like a standing field that doesn’t move. Gravity itself, for instance, doesn’t move against anything. Its power moves all objects within its field, but the gravity field itself does not move.
Force always moves against something, whereas power doesn’t move against anything at all. Force is incomplete and therefore it has to be fed energy constantly. Power is total and complete in itself and requires nothing from outside. It makes no demands; it has no needs. Because force has an insatiable appetite, it constantly consumes. Power, in contrast, energizes, gives forth, supplies, and supports. Power gives life and energy – force takes these away. We notice that power is associated with compassion and makes us feel positively about ourselves. Force is associated with judgment and makes us feel poorly about ourselves.
Force always creates counterforce; its effect is to polarize rather than unify. Polarization always implies conflict; its cost, therefore, is always high. Because force incites polarization, it inevitably produces a win/lose dichotomy; and because somebody always loses, enemies are created. Constantly faced with enemies, force requires constant defence. Defensiveness is invariably costly, whether in the marketplace, politics, or international affairs.
In looking for the source of power, we’ve noted that it’s associated with meaning, and this meaning has to do with the significance of life itself. Force is concrete, literal, and arguable. It requires proof and support. The sources of power, however, are inarguable and aren’t subject to proof. The self-evident isn’t arguable. That health is more important than disease, that honour is preferable to dishonour, that faith and trust are preferable to doubt and cynicism, that the constructive is preferable to the destructive – all are self-evident statements not subjects to proof. Ultimately, the only thing we can say about a source of power that it just “is”.
Every civilization is characterised by native principles. If the principles of a civilization are noble, it succeeds; if they’re selfish, it falls. As a term, principles may sound abstract, but the consequences of principle are quite concrete. If we examine principles, we’ll see that they reside in an invisible realm within consciousness itself. Although we can point out examples of honesty in the world, honesty itself as an organising principle central to civilization does not independently exist anywhere in the external world. True power, then, emanates from consciousness itself; what we see is a visible manifestation of the invisible.”
Reference: Hawkins, D. R. Power vs. force: the hidden determinants of human behavior. USA. Veritas Publishing. 1995.