-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Stillwell <Stills@Bigfoot.com>
To: moq_discuss@moq.org <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Date: Monday, February 08, 1999 10:43 PM
Subject: MD Re: Values within values
>Yellow Creek's Mail wrote:
>
>> However, I think there is some confusion about what constitutes intellectual values. Obviously the act that Clinton engaged in was Biological, not intellectual.
>
>Agreed. But according to Roger's post (correct me if I am wrong) the decision to engage in the act was intellectual.
>
>
>> What I think has to be kept in mind is that within these levels of value there is also levels of value. I know this has not really been addressed, but I hope it is in the future.
>
>Hmmm. That is something to think about. Are you saying that the intellect weighs biological, social, and intellectual value? Therefore, the most moral thing for the intellect is to advance itself? Very Interesting!!
>
>> I think that you just have to weigh the situation to see what has more quality.
>
>You used the same word "weigh". Perhaps I am seeing you!
>
>> I have come up with an idea for what has more value in a certain level. It is my opinion that whatever comes closest to the purest form of that level is the most valuable.
>
>So the ultimate goal of the intellect is to support the intellect and the ultimate goal of a social entity is to help society. This is minor, but might be something to think about. As I said, all we have is intellect so is not government a group of intellects (in relative terms). And if so, would not the government's mandate to be to help society, but also keep strucuture in place to help us to learn and understand things. Of course, government might be less intellectual than the people it governs, but ideally should it not support the intellect? Many have cautioned a social entity should not be social -- the Nazi's who were mostly about social value. Eg, they researched missiles, so that the Natzi social structure could be imposed and enforced.
>
>Now the acid test. To go back to Clinton, without any prejudgements, what does the MOQ say. I don't really have an opinion yet, so let's see what the MOQ says.
>
>What happened? Clinton got off (Clinton biologically happier). Clinton hurt his wife and family (socially worse). Clinton enraged those with family values and brought together liberals who say "what happens in the bedroom is nobodies business" (socially neutral??). Clinton lied to senate (intellectually worse). Clinton (indirectly) reiforced that even presidents have socially unacceptable sexual urges, and perhaps we should be more honest and take it for what it is. If society was less judgemental, we would not have to sneak around and lie about or repress what we are. (hesitatingly intellectually better).
>
>Ultimately, I have to think more about the situation and meditate upon how everyone is really affected by this all. That brings me back to the start of this whole debate. If I knew nothing about the levels, but was more sensitive to all the effects of these actions, I would be closer to the truth. Teach me the levels better, and I would still be unable to resolve this issue.
>
>This is where my frustration lies. Are the levels clear and I am too dumb to apply them? Or do you need to be sensitive to everything to really apply the levels. If one was really genuinely sensitive to everything, sensitive to value directly without prejudgement, then what need is there to intellectualize in this manner like many people are doing here. What benefit do the levels have? Why not start with meditation, obersevation of the mind, and see how ideals, culture, and so forth hinder us form being one with value, quality, reality.
>
>Summary: can we learn truth of morality from being an outsider looking in and applying the levels or is it better dropping the intellect, prejudgement and becoming intimate with the experience. One would then feel whether it was right or wrong with no confusion.
>
>Hello Rob,
Just a minor point to make about your reply. I think your last statement kind of sums up a problem for some people. That is namely that you can't do away with any of the levels completely. They all make up a unit of support which ends up leading to ultimate quality. The sad thing is that no matter how much I try I can't escape the levels and leave them behind. For example, no matter how much I would like to get rid of my body I am forced to accept it. This is part of my biological level as well as everyone else's. NO escape.
As for the intellect, I can't drop that either. In fact, I would guess that probably 99% of the world's population is stuck in the intellectual level. (Always thinking about things). I feel that this intellectual level is our everyday consciousness. However, in Zen we try to get back to ulitmate reality or quality. But every Zen master knows there is no escape completely from the intellect. In other words in the summer we sweat, and in the winter we shiver.
I don't really like talking politics, but since I have mentioned them previously I need to clarify my viewpoint. Clinton's actions to me are a conflict between old soical values and new ones. He represents the new values of our time that have been intellectualized. Namely that it's O.K. to do whatever you want, or what pleases you. BUT this country was founded on values that came from Europeans, and were based on religion but also namely reason. However, most of our old morals were probably derived from religion which is where I think the conflicting social values come in. The Republicans are for the values of old which say -be faitful, never lie, and be of good character. Values that can probably be traced to religious belifes. Values that this country was based on. However, Clinton comes along and is representing the new values of society namely the next level up that society is embracing,reason. Now reason itself is intellectual, but I think the values that Clinton represents are social. Probab
ly, the reason his approval is so high is because he represents the social values today, and not the ones of yesterday.
Thanks,
Sorry about rambling on so much.
Jason Nelson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:52 BST