From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Sun Jan 05 2003 - 03:42:18 GMT
Steve,
I'm going to keep this short, as I think that my first reply still stands.
We have two differences as I see it:
1) Theoretical: You think spiritual change for everyone must occur before
material change is to happen for everyone. I think material change for
everyone must occur before spiritual change is to happen for everyone.
2) Practical: You think that "with the exception of a relatively small
group of people in
the US, people's material necessities are taken care of." I disagree. I'm
still sympathetic to the pain and suffering of those around me and I think
that we have a ways to go before material necessities are taken care of.
(You said: "I also don't think anyone needs a degree in philosophy or a
great deal of
time for studying metaphysics to put what ZAMM teaches into practice."
Clearly you don't read other things I've written, so I won't blame you for
thinking I've said something like that. Oh, and if time's not an issue,
when did the type of person I'm talking about have time to read ZMM?)
I will take your Question Quiz as someone I'm talking about would take it.
>I could take the highway instead of the country road and get there 5 minutes
>faster. Will it make my day more enjoyable?
No, but I only have 15 minutes to get between jobs, so an extra 5 minutes
to breathe will help me keep my job in case of a 5 minute set-back.
>I could get a second job and make more money. But would I be any happier?
Yes and no. I don't like two jobs, but since I'll be able to feed myself
and my children, I suppose you could say I'd be happier.
>I could dump my wife for someone younger. Would my life be any better?
No, because I don't think someone younger would also want to work two jobs
and help raise my kids.
You see, I keep switching the ground to the perspective of the poor because
that's where the problem is. Those may all be pertinent questions for the
rich and lazy, but they seem pretty stupid for the poor and destitute. You
don't see this problem because you think that there aren't many poor people.
>Both the the liberal and conservative points of view are based on the
>assumption that more wealth is what will make our lives better. You seem to
>agree when you say that what we need is "more money." I disagree (and in
>doing so I have apparently offended your liberal sensibilities with your
>"oh, Lord" and your choking back of anger, disbelief, and sorrow.)
Something extraordinary has happened to me just now. I realize what Steve
is saying finally. Because in arguing with Steve, I've come across someone
who thinks we have enough money. In light of you, Steve, I rescind on
needing "more money." Now I think we need more sensitization towards the
pain, suffering, and humiliation of others so that economic status quo
apologists like yourself won't think that "with the exception of a
relatively small group of people in the US, people's material necessities
are taken care of."
Thank you Steve. I hope you enjoy the view of the world from your gated
community.
Matt
p.s. I know, I know. That was uncalled for. I've been reading to much Al
Franken lately. Blame the decline of public civility on him. Or Rush
Limbaugh as he does. Either way.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 05 2003 - 03:36:39 GMT