Murdock, Mark (Mark.Murdock@Unisys.Com)
Fri, 19 Dec 1997 03:31:46 +0100
Excellent Ken!
Appropriate for the season too, I think.
> 50% of the entire world's wealth would be in the hands of only 6
> people
> and all 6 would be citizens of the United States.
>
> 80 would live in substandard housing.
>
> 70 would be unable to read.
>
> 50 would suffer from malnutrition.
>
> When one considers our world from such an incredibly compressed
> perspective, the need for both tolerance and understanding becomes
> glaringly apparent.
>
> If the Metaphysics of Quality can do anything to redress these
> inequalities then that should be one of its prominent concerns.
>
Absolutely.
These numbers are immoral. Now I would ask to take the exercise one
step further. Instead of 100 people, consider 1.
Now, would you tolerate yourself being illiterate or living in a dump 6
days a week or half hungry? Of course not. Why then do we tolerate
these conditions?
Because it's someone else. It's outside of us. Subject-Object, Me-Not
Me thinking creates the isolation that disconnects us from each other.
But the disconnection is purely cultural and not reflective of reality.
We can intellectualize about it until the cows come home, but until you
feel it, MoQ is worthless. Without the Good - Truth inversion, MoQ will
wind up on the intellectual scrap heap. It's just another truth,
temporal, fleeting, distracting us from the affairs of mankind.
If you accept the "only value is" premise and Pirsig's hierarchical
structure, then people are the most precious, most value-able. Combine
this value system with the belief that we are all one "person," and you
have a recipe for changing the world.
This can only be accomplished by placing priority on feelings of
Goodness, of right, above our misplaced quest for more knowledge.
Spending dollars on a bigger Hubble Telescope or a new superconducting
super collider is immoral while one child goes hungry on this planet.
One child. That's what will change our condition and nothing short.
Technology and science will never, never, never improve the human
condition without Religion (or the more secular MoQ/Eastern percept
based on Oneness) to guide it. Spiritual leaders (perhaps MoQ
Metaphysicians?) will direct science in the next millenium. I know this
in my heart. I'm passionate about it. If I fail, it won't be because I
quit. Even Einstein recognized the need when he said "Religion without
science is lame, but science without religion is blind." Now, I may
sound like a broken record, but how can you argue with Einstein, hmmmm?
> I consider
> this to be the proper concern of all of us. Concern for the viability
> of
> the Earth would be one of the important places to start.
>
I only differ in priorty here, Ken. People first, the Earth will
follow.
>
> This seems to me to be a good thread for the Squad.
>
Yes, good indeed.
M.
>
>
>
> --
> post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
>
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:26 CEST