Ihave to say that was a most interesting topic. But You forgot one
important attribute that leaves him in office. And that is the people,
society, the individuals that say that everything that he did as a whole
wasn't justified but OK. The government may be appointed people but
think individually with their own views and the the people who appointed
them into office. What I don't understand is that the government
doesn't approve and the general society passes it off which in my humble
opinion think it is OK. The MoQ clearly forecast this that there is the
"hippies verse the Victorian" competitivenness going. Who is thinking
intellectually and who is biologically?? In this matter, Is it safe to
say that Intellectuals are "butting heads so to speak" or what???
Eric Schnax
>From owner-moq_discuss@mill.venus.co.uk Mon Feb 08 20:37:41 1999
>Received: from [193.243.229.112] by hotmail.com (1.1) with SMTP id
MHotMailB889068A7A42FD1017077C1F3E570B69D0; Mon Feb 08 20:37:41 1999
>Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
> by mill.venus.co.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) id EAA10090
> for moq_discuss-outgoing; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 04:35:33 GMT
>Received: from mail.the-wire.com (mail.the-wire.com [198.53.192.5])
> by mill.venus.co.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id EAA10086
> for <moq_discuss@moq.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 04:35:30 GMT
>Received: from Bigfoot.com (ts2-58.the-wire.com [205.206.39.68])
> by mail.the-wire.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA20078
> for <moq_discuss@moq.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 23:30:38 -0500 (EST)
>Message-ID: <36BFBB9E.1D647AA1@Bigfoot.com>
>Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 23:37:50 -0500
>From: Rob Stillwell <Stills@Bigfoot.com>
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; U)
>X-Accept-Language: en
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: MD Re: Values within values
>References: <000901be537f$25146c40$891fb1cf@a7q2u3>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>
>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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
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