In a message dated 11/10/98 6:48:22 AM Pacific Standard Time,
diana@hongkong.com writes:
> And, seeing as it's an important issue and the newspapers have hardly
>even mentioned it, how about Bill and Monica.
>What we have is low social value - adultery, lies, scandal
>and intellectual value - so what? It doesn't affect the economy
>The intellectual value is superior, but isn't there a danger that
>sanctioning of these low social values by the president, no less, could
>lead to further breakdown in the nation's social value. This single
>event might not be the cause of all social problems but in retrospect it
>might be identified as the last staw, the crucial event in American
>history that finally destroyed the most important values of that
>society. Maybe this time the intellectual level has just gone too far.
>At the moment nobody really knows.
>That's fair enough but Pirsig himself makes the claim that the
>MoQ let's us make moral decisions based on reason and I think this claim
>is worth investigating. In this example, I can see that the MoQ might
>help us clarify the issues somewhat, but it doesn't make the answer
>obvious. Sure if we knew in advance whether or not the social level will
>suffer too much damage then we could decide what was best. But we don't
> know, so the only thing we can do is go with our feelings - Dynamic
>Quality.
>Platt argues that DQ is reasonable. Well I would agree that the
>acceptance of the DQ phenomenon is reasonable but I'm not so sure that
>that makes the exercise of DQ an exercise of reason. If it were then we
>should be able to logically show why Clinton should stay in power or why
>he shouldn't, and if that logic were sound then everyone would agree
>with it.
Diana
>>
Great question, Diana. The real answer here is to put the American Govt
system within the framework of MOQ, but I'm not going to do that. After
thinking about it for a long time, My solution is there is no solution. The
question here is individual intellectual thinking about a social problem. If
our Socrates (Bill) intellectually thinks he should resign (or not to), it is
his dynamic solution. If our other Socrates (the senate) intellectually
thinks it should impeach him or not (or censure), it is its dynamic solution.
My line of reasoning is, my civic input is my vote. Would I intellectually
vote for Bill Clinton as president knowing about his social morality? No.
(BTW I do not believe in term limits). But his offense is not a material
offence of abuse of power. Does his offense warrant me desiring to tear
revolt or cause a riot?. No. So the solution is to use the static patterns
of our society (the Constitution). If we want to intellectually change it
because our static intellectual patterns tell us so, we make an amendment to
the constitution.
If you think this is too impersonal and that you have a direct say in what our
politicians do, than you should get into politics. We do not live in a
democracy, it is a republic, with a representational government. I think the
greatest evil is not in our government, but in the way the government is
restricted, specifically the two party social system. Any solutions here???
If you want to be personal, get into local and community politics and forms.
That is where I work to improve my Social Static Quality.
But Diana, you and drose and others are right, we often use hindsight to
decide morality. MOQ creates a future, a framework, for our moral compass.
But it will always be dynamic action that creates, not guesses and opinions.
There are groups (Christian Coalition for example) out there who are actively
meeting with senate members trying to influence the vote. Join in or write
members.
I heard if you write a letter to your congressman/woman it counts as 55,000
people because the politicians weigh your letters as a poll.
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:39 BST