Hi Bo
Hi everyone
Thanks for replying, your thoughts inspired a great deal more thoughts i me and i just hope i m able to put them down clearly here (English is my second language, i apologise for my mistakes.)
> Does the social level really mean we are unaware of the lower levels
> of value??
BO:
I agree with you, but Dan's message is (perhaps) that the
Intellectual level is inattentive because it is preoccupied with its parent level - society. The message from me however is that the
term "aware " (in a SOM sense), keeps scewing up the he issue.
We -(as a "jungle of levels") are aware when focus shifts. When
Dan cut himself with the chaisaw (his) biology came to the fore - intermingled with awareness of other Q-planes.
RED:
Bo - I see what you mean and think we are both saying the same thing, but am not happy with you saying "the Intellectual level is inattentive because it is preoccupied with its parent level - society". As I look at things, the intellectual levels completely ignores the social level and believe it's attempts to undermine society are via the strategy of making it redundant rather than simply destroying its arguments. If i once again refer to my example of the law as a legal force, i believe the intellectual world now rewrites laws based on it's own interpretation of offences against organic systems rather than by tearing into societies old laws. I.E. it ignores what society wants and judges all cases on it's intellectual and organic values. In all courts today there are examples where the courts have gone completely against what a community wanted simply because the intellectual reasoning of societies case has been left wanting. So just to clarify, i don't think the intellect is preoccupied with society,
quite the opposite, i think intellect completely ignores society and is simply going about its own business of making society redundant.
Dan - I hope your leg is better!! :o)
> As law-abiding human beings (as i am sure you all are),
> why do we not commit crimes against our organic values?
...not commit crimes against OUR organic values?
RED:
Sorry,bad English, i meant to say "...not commit crimes against organic values"
I don't quite get that, but if you mean that suicide is unacceptable thanks to the
social value you are right. The only cause the individual is
supposed to die for is Society's preservation, but this is not defined as suicide - merely duty - as in ancient times when the old and
infirm wandered out in the wilderness. Just horrible seen from Intellect: Duty from Society. ("society" not a country or a state or anything like that but Social Value)
RED:
I agree until you say "Just horrible seen from Intellect: Duty from Society". I don't think the word horrible belongs in this sentence, if the suicide is from duty to social values then i don't think the intellect cares about this. imagine a serial criminal of the lowest order who decides to kill himself because he considers himself a danger to the rest of society. I don't think the intellect has a problem with this as by killing himself he is stopping himself from harming organic values such as life. i think intellect only has a problem with suicide when it is simply an act against organic or intellectual values. so killing yourself where you re posing no threat to anything else and where you can get help IS horrible to the intellectual value, but suicide for the preservation of society is NOT horrible to the intellect as this act protects the organic values of living beings.
> is it because society tells us not to and our intellect agrees (as > Dan seems to be > saying)
I suspect that I am completely beside your reasoning, but to
continue in my own rut. Intellect does not agree with society on
anything, the level below itself is EVIL to all levels, so (regarding
the suicide issue) what intellect abhors is Society's right to
demand killing of self or other.
RED:
i disagree with you on this last point a outlined earlier.
> or is it that the intellect allows us to perform our own
> evaluations of the situations giving rise to social law? I.E. our
> intellect allows us to make our own mind up about what is right
> and wrong and thus to challenge the outdated laws society has
> flung upon us.
"Social law" is not dependent upon any accentuated Intellectual
level. LAW - written or unwritten - IS society, but the law may be intellect-influenced in a culture dominated by intellectual values.
RED:
Maybe I am not understanding you correctly but if I am, I completely disagree with you! Social law is created for the continuation of social values. Intellectual law is for the continuation of Intellectual values! If an intellectual law is passed that is harmful to society (for example the release of a serial criminal back into the community) then how can this law be classed as being the act OF society??? why would society harm itself like this?
In
the same way that social value may influence biological life to a
great degree.
RED:
I agree that social value influences biological life but what you said a bit before seemed to suggest that society can influence intellect. surely you can't mean this? the only way society influences intellect is when we get close to election time and the intellectual politicians have to get votes from society (topical ;o) )
This is a bit unclear. "Assault against the organic value system"?
In what sense and context? At the Organic level there is no greater
value than "assaults": Kill, avoiding being killed, eating, copulation.
There isn't any "human organic value level", our safety from the dog-
kills-dog existence is due to social value controlling biological
value, but our CIVILIZED manners are due to the Intellectual
controlling social value.
RED:
Sorry, once again i have been unclear so ill try make myself better understood. consider, lets say, a murder that has been committed in a community. the community (a subgroup of society) will want the murderer either removed from the community or put to death (this is social law at work). the lawyers for the defence however will argue that the murderer had an emotional motive and is repentant and should be allowed to live i the community when he is released and rehabilitated. in this example, we have the society law arguing for the concerns of society and on the other side, we have the defence lawyers arguing for the concerns of the individual and the intellect. Unless the crime was SO abhorant to be undefendable, the defence lawyers will usually stop the man being put to death and will have him paroled within 20 years! The intellectual laws have made the social laws redundant in ths case! I hope i have made myself clearer this time.
Kind regards
Richard
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
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 - 16:00:50 BST