2005-6-29 05:20:00
Part 13
The last time we were in Manti we presented the Principles of Unification. Hopefully most of you have endorsed them. Something else needs unified. Does anybody know what it is? We worked on the Principles of Unification for religions. We presented points that almost every religion believes the same way. So we presented beliefs that the Muslims believe like the Christians and the Buddhists believe like the Muslims and if the Indians and everyone believes the same on these certain points they can see that there is more bringing them together than taking them apart. There isn't too much they disagree on, but lot of people don't want to be unified that much.
Something even worse than religion right now, is politics. Right now in this country we're having a civil war on the astral plane. It's unlike anything since the Civil War in the days of Abraham Lincoln. If you read about the thoughts just before the Civil War it's a lot like it is today. The Democrats and Republicans really hated each other. Unfortunately the way this was resolved was through the Civil War and the splitting up of the nation. We've got a splitting up of the nation now. Not right in two but they're talking about the red states and the blue states so we're kind of split up in that way. The Democrats hate the Republicans and the Republicans hate the Democrats. Liberals hate Conservatives and Conservatives hate Liberals. We're reaching a fairly dangerous point. It's good to have a certain amount of disagreement with argument and dialog and reaching resolution. This is how it should be. But we're reaching a very strong dichotomy in our country that needs to be corrected to a degree.
So what I've written is called the Principles of Unification. There are twenty principles that both parties should agree upon 100%. I'm going to pass these out to everybody.
After all those OMs I almost feel too spiritual to talk about politics. When we talk about politics we usually want to feel angry. (laughter)
Audience: This says Principles of Political Unification. Isn't that an oxymoron?
JJ: Pretty close. Unfortunately it's not just this country. It seems to be a worldwide thing. Wherever you go, in whichever country, there is a big dichotomy in political thought and a lot of hatred involved. It's probably strongest in the United States than anywhere because we have a lot of freedom of thought here so every view is presented, probably more than anywhere. So there is a lot of dialog going on. It's to the point that they don't agree with things the person they're opposing says even if they believe it. Both sides are getting that close-minded. If Bush or Clinton or someone gets up and says, "I believe in prosperity" the other side will say, "I disagree with that." No matter what is said, they'll disagree with it. People are developing the mindset that the other side is evil and needs to be destroyed.
What we need is a little more unification, judgment, common sense, brotherhood and respect. So here are the principles. We'll read through them and talk about them. I'm sure we probably have people on both sides of the political spectrum in this room. It might be close to 50-50 so the group is a good testing ground. What we want is for everyone to comment on whether you agree on these principles from your point of view, politically. We'll try to avoid discussion on which party is the best, Republican or Democrat.
1. I will seek that which is good for my country above that which is good for my party.
Do you think both parties should do that? I know there are also a few Libertarians and minority parties should hopefully agree with that. Nobody disagrees? Good.
Audience: comment inaudible.
JJ: For most people they can see what's good but you're right. Everybody has a different definition of good. Sometimes in politics it doesn't matter. Even if they recognize the good they will negate it for the good of their party, I mean blatantly disregard it.
Audience: I'd like to comment that there are two extremes on this particular point. Not everyone will agree with it. It's like in Sunday school the answer to every question is, "What would Jesus do?" That depends on whether you're talking to a fundamentalist Christian. People interpret Jesus into their own best liking so it's a good point that which is good for my party or which is good for my country but what do you mean by good opens a whole can of worms because of that principle. If there is a way that we could maybe rephrase the word 'good' to 'what is in course with my conscience' because now we're going to a standard.
JJ: It's not perfect but what we want to do is to establish a certain mindset that the good of the many is better than the good of the few.
Audience: From my understanding you aren't setting an absolute standard of good. You're saying if I'm a person and I look out here and I think from my point of view this is good for the party or this is good for everyone. It's not an absolute standard of good. If you think something is good you follow then you follow the examples.
JJ: Let's suppose with an obvious example like balancing the budget. Everyone agrees that the budget should be balanced. But let's suppose your party wants to spend a lot of money for political purposes and on the sex life of the housefly because a bunch of people in your party are going to be benefited. The balanced budget is the better option because you'd need to unbalance the budget to do this research. So, the person really knows he's not following the good of the whole when he benefits a handful of his constituencies with research on the sex life of the tse tse fly. He knows that but a lot of them do it anyway.
A lot of things won't be covered by this like Sterling says. There are certain things when you meet a certain crossroads sometimes where these guys know they're not doing what's good for the whole but they want to benefit the few rather than the many.
Audience: I think what Sterling is saying and what you're saying is the same thing. With the good of the group, if you think about concentric circles, there's going to be some overlap or places where you agree it's good and others agree it's good. Wherever these segments of the circle overlap that might be good for the group but whatever it is for the country it encompasses more harmony and more unity than just for some group or party.
JJ: Then there are other cases where one side will think something is good but the other side will say this principle won't resolve that, but it will resolve some things if they commit themselves to follow their conscience and the good that they recognize.
Audience: What you're establishing with this first point is you're saying, "Look, you can't assume that what's good for your party is automatically good for the country. It puts them in the other person's shoes and says, "Think about where they're coming from and let's look at the whole picture here rather than just from your own moccasins." That's what this first principle establishes and I think that's a good first principle.
Audience: I'm not sure I understand why we're not expanding that to, "I see what is good for my planet, Earth." Why are limiting it to my country? Why aren't we looking at a bigger picture?
JJ: Because most people don't think globally. If you're talking about metaphysical people that would be good but when you're talking about the political animals out there they'd see it as a bunch of new age mumbo jumbo. For people like us that would be good.
Audience: I'd think you'd want to establish unity and harmony within your own country first before you can unite the whole world.
Audience: chatter between members on world vs. country
JJ: You're right. It needs to be but what needs to be and what can be done are often two different things.
Audience: We don't have high enough aspirations. Why are we limiting ourselves?
Audience: Look at this as a first step. This is a movement in that direction.
JJ: We're looking at something which will hopefully permeate down into the born again Christians, the atheist, the capitalist, the business man and all these people who really aren't into metaphysics. They can understand the word 'good'.
Audience: It seems to me, like you said in the beginning, we have this separation going on. "I'm Republican. I'm Democrat." We've become so segregated party-wise that this first statement says, "Wait a second. We've got common ground which is the country." It takes the people who are segregated to their party and it actually divides them from their party and puts them back into their country, where we were originally. So, I believe this sentence and this statement does exactly what you're tying to make it do, separating them from their differences and unifying them with their common ground.
JJ: Good point. It reminds me of Kennedy's words, "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." That goes along a little bit with this first principle.
Audience: I think we could reword it to say 'my country and the world' instead of limiting it to my country.
JJ: That sounds good. What do you guys think?
Audience: It helps to see it through a universal perspective because one group of people or one country can set an example for the world.
JJ: Yea, either way would work I think. Many of the people who will like something like this will be the more metaphysical people anyway. But hopefully we can eventually, and it may take years or decades, but eventually something like this can permeate down into ordinary consciousness so we can negate some of this hate and division we have among us. Let's go to number 2.
If you wish to know what a man is, place him in authority. Yugoslav Proverb
Copyright © 2005 by J J Dewey, All Rights Reserved