David L Thomas wrote:
>
> Mder's
[snip]
>
> So it would seem that the search in the focus group for the "5th level" is
> misguided inasmuch as somewhere just beyond normal mortal intellect lies the
> realm of unpatterned dynamic moral values which has the moral authority to
> dominant our existence. And this realm is accessible to any individual, as
> mystics have clearly and unequivocally demonstrated throughout human history,
> though either or both "clear mind" or "drugged mind" practices.
>
> Returning to the deciding quote on moral authority lets apply these insights
> to a historic real world event.
>
> "In general, given a choice of two courses to follow and all other things
> being equal, that choice which is more Dynamic, that is, at a higher level of
> evolution, is more moral."
>
> After all the moral arguments between the four levels have been waged and
> assuming they are deadlocked -equal- under the MoQ the highest moral authority
> to decide an issue is dynamic quality accessible though mystic experience. If
> it is up to an individual to make the choice; How should it be done? Truman
> should have either consulted a mystic or somehow induced in himself a mystical
> experience by ritual practice or drugs prior to making the decision to drop
> the bomb on Hiroshima and made his decision based on that experience. Then,
> whatever the decision, it would have then been unquestionable; inasmuch as it
> was the most dynamic, at the highest level of authority, and consequently the
> most moral decision available to any mortal.
>
> But wait, this decision is just too big, too monumental, the consequences too
> far reaching to leave to a single individual. So the President and nineteen of
> his top advisors stuggle with "the drop the bomb question" and are deadlocked
> at a 10/10 tie but a decision must be made. The law, now modified per the
> dominance of MoQ, says that in these situations, if one is not a practicing
> mystic, they must drop acid and then revote. They do, the vote is 11/9 for.
>
> This would be without question the most dynamic, morally superior decision
> humankind could have made and absolutely the best method to arrive at it?
>
> First God, then Putnam, long live the brujos.
Hi Dave
Interesting scenario. Might I suggest in as much as "dropping acid" is a
serious tool to be used, practitioners must be considered adepts at
manipulating this tool. One doesn't simply "drop acid" and suddenly
become enlightened to all ways of our Universe. To use such a tool
efficiently requires years of training and guidance.
This introduces an awareness of whole new sets of moral values into such
a decision to destroy another culture. Values that state we are not
separate beings each existing in isolation and alone-ness. Values that
state all cultures contain both good and evil, but those concepts in
themselves are meaningless in deciding which culture is "better". All
cultures are unique and Good. I would suggest that people enlightened to
these values would be very reticent to vote "aye" on dropping an atomic
bomb on other peoples.
How would WWII have ended then? If leaders of our culture were adepts at
perceiving normally unseen value in our Universe then there would have
been no war. Hitler would have been a farce. Japan a minor nuisance. If
our leaders recognized that our resources are virtually unlimited there
would be no dog-eat-dog world as we live in today. Instead of every one
(every country) for themselves we would recognize higher value in
pursuing Good for all.
But I would also suggest our present day technology would not be
possible under such leadership and this whole argument is moot (mu). War
in its modern day form was born along with Aristotlian reasoning in
ancient Greece. In other words, what we are talking about is very
deep-seated in our Western culture. Determinism and objectivity. Such
subjective experiences as acid trips are looked upon as unreliable and
illusionary.
As a first board in a Quality Party platform (as suggested by jc), I
would offer a retreat twice a year in a secluded and private outdoor
setting where all Party members could gather. Go on a trip without ever
leaving the farm, so to speak. Strictly voluntary, of course. And with
Quality guides for inexperienced seekers. No policy would be determined
on these retreats. Yet experiences offered would serve in Good stead all
year long. Actually this would be like a pylon for our platform and not
a board at all.
Would this make our world "better"? I think so. And it might even be
fun! :)
Dan
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:13 BST