Hullo Gav,
Thanks for your response to my specific query. You say, "when my society
does something it is in effect 'me' doing it". I think this is one aspect of
the issue that deserves closer scrutiny. And it seems that Pirsig's scheme,
which I often criticise, might be of some value in exploring this issue,
though I won't take that further here.
You mention specific issues, such as the treatment of asylum seekers, and
destruction of the environment, that are close to my heart. Some years ago I
made the decision to join a major political party to attempt to influence
policy in areas such as these. In joining a major party I made the rational
calculation that it might be better to join a party that has at least the
potential to assume power and make decisions that directly impact on issues
that concern me, rather than support a minor party which would already have
policies closer to the ideal as I see it, but which is unlikely (except in
balance of power situations) to have much chance to change things. The down
side of this is that major parties are much more entrenched in all sorts of
'political' issues that have little to do with quality resolutions to
real-world issues, and much to do with survival and power, both within the
party and against other parties. I think I made a 'reasonable' decision,
given the scale and remoteness of the issues, and the pragmatic options open
to me.
I was fortunate to find a few people with similar views in my community, and
we were able to establish a branch of the party locally. Despite having had
the opportunity to lobby both state and national leaders through my
involvement in the party, and getting some motions through conferences to
further the goals that really concern me, the party took pragmatic stances
on issues at the most recent election that sold out the values that I and my
friends hold dear. We met last week to consider our options, and decided to
close the branch. Some will remain members of the party, some have left. The
general feeling was that the local member of parliament had no interest in
our views, only in our support in getting re-elected. This person has
excellent knowledge of the issues that concern us, but is clearly driven by
personal ambition more than by moral or ethical concerns. Others in the
party share our concerns, but were powerless to act when the party had to
make important decisions in the heat of an election.
OK, you can't win them all. But as we discussed our involvement over the
space of some years, the question we debated was had we in fact won anything
from our investment of time and effort and money, and our reluctant
conclusion was that probably nothing had been achieved.
I have gone into this detail because it encapsulates some of the issues that
face any citizen in a 'democracy' who wishes to act morally on issues of
concern. While I do not deny the potential for individuals to make a
difference through acting on their ideals, my pragmatic experience suggests
that the personal self interest of people in the system usually prevails
over the idealism of those who can only afford a part time involvement in
the apparatus of power. The general disillusionment with political parties
in a number of western countries, especially acute in Australia, reflects
this assessment. I have also seen the burn-out that afflicts many in the
environment movement as well, where individuals with high ideals battle
entrenched interests. I see many people deeply scarred by that battle,
becoming bitter, or cynical, or manipulative. Perhaps this is just the price
that must be paid, but I must say my limited involvement makes me at least
open to exploring any alternative that might be available. In this regard,
the mystic view has some attractions.
But the mystic is offering a radical alternative. Few mystics, it seems,
have been active in social causes. Their message is broadly that the sort of
involvement I describe above is fundamentally an exercise of the ego, hence
doomed to fail. The political struggle actually increases suffering, since
it fails to deal with the root of suffering. Personal transformation comes
first, only then does return to the market place and the bodhisattva vow
("no matter how limitless beings, I vow to liberate them all") have a place.
Wilber blames "mythic-literal Christianity" for undermining the insight of
Plotinus, that each individual holon is the One Spirit in its entirety, and
the outcome was that individuals in the west were denied enlightenment in
this life, on this earth. Suffering now was only to be offset with a promise
of a blissful after-life. (See 'Sex, Ecology, Spirituality', Ch 10) Duty
became the dominant value. Duty means doing what is difficult now because it
is moral, hence it is fundamentally 'efforting'. Whereas the mystic
proclaims that once I am truly in touch with what is, when something needs
to be done, I just do it. There is no effort, just immediacy. [What I am
calling integral morality.]
Seen from this perspective, the situation of Socrates becomes more
understandable. For him there is no big deal about the hemlock. He has been
condemned by the political establishment; the action that follows just is.
While for his companions, bound up with the injustice of the decision, there
is struggle and pain.
To return to your comment "when my society does something it is in effect
'me' doing it", I must disagree. This seems to me an ego illusion. The only
government that would not make at least some decisions I disagree with would
be a dictatorship - where I am dictator. [I think E.P. Thompson, the English
historian had it about right. "I'm a member of the Labour Party,' Thompson
replied to an interviewer's question; 'that's just like being a member of
the human race. You accept it without enthusiasm."]
The world is full of suffering. I can make an effort here, patch up
something there, but the impact is minimal. The mystic alternative seems
selfish at first. Attend to my own salvation. Yet without this I labour in
vain, since my action flows from judgment that is bound up with my egoic
development, and ultimately flows from childhood trauma and my bondage to
patterns established then. Only liberation within can free me to act morally
in the world.
Well, that's the thesis. How do you respond?
John B
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:11 BST