XCTO MAKES A COMEBACK, AGREES WITH SOME ON THAT POLITICS STUFF, BUT WANTS TO
ENCOURAGE A NEW PERSPECTIVE AND HOPEFULLY CUT A GORDIAN KNOT
Hi all,
It's been about two months since i last posted but I'm kind of back. I kept
up with early Jan., but I had to just erase about 300 message without reading
them just too get back into somekind of flow with current discussions. My
apologies to any great posts...please FWD any that y'all think made
particularly good points. I will especially love to look at them IF THEY'RE
NOT YOUR OWN (HAHAHA).
I'll start with platt but I also address drose
>In a message dated 2/10/99 8:35:58 AM Pacific Standard Time,
>pholden5@earthlink.net writes:
> Drose has done an excellent job in refuting David’s take on Clinton's
>impeachment trial.
I agree with all of drose's arguments with exceptions to some of his
conclusions (see below)
But Platt expounds further with the heart of the matter:
>For further explanation of what's really going on, I suggest rereading
>Chapter 24 in “LILA” where Pirsig clearly exposes the "culture war" that
>energizes the combatants in the trial. David’s right about that.
It seems pretty obvious that the culture war is the most prominent feature of
the hearings...but the cultures aren't really as ideological (intellectual) as
right-wing/left wing, religious right/hippie liberals. It comes down to
political(social) power and the control thereof. I say this because who are
the only real participants ?- not the public but the politicians. Nobody has
to take what they say as an intellectual value because they are mostly
proceding on the Social Quality of the working and dynamic Constitution. They
are not making an amendment to change the Constitution but trying to create
precedent.
Platt
> "And what of the rule of law? -- that unique aspect of a free society that
>protects you from the fire on your roof or the knock on your door at 3:00
>a.m.? What does lying under oath do the rule of law? Do we still have a
>government of laws and not of men? Does the law apply to some people
>with the force and ferocity while the powerful are immune? Do we have
>one set of laws for the officers and another from the enlisted? Should
>we?" --
Hyde was right to say that this concept was the issue of LAW (Social SQ).
This quote is the center of droses (is "drose" supposed to be capitalized?)
whole argument and I think says it best.
Then Platt goes on with his insight with
> And then I hear these words from Robert Pirsig:
> "The paralysis of America is a paralysis of moral patterns. Morals can't
> function normally because morals have been declared intellectually illegal
> by the subject-object metaphysics that dominates present social thought.
> These subject-object patterns were never designed for the job of
> governing society. They're not doing it. When they're put in the position
> of controlling society, of setting moral standards and declaring values,
> and when they declare that there are no values and nor morals, the result
> isn't progress. The result is social catastrophe."
> With Clinton, we have social catastrophe--lying under oath, obstructing
> justice and bombing the innocent. >>
Eric says this though
>...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.
Here is where I break from all current arguments.
Eric...what does the people have to do with this issue at all? I want to push
the point that public opinion shouldn't have any bearing on the procedings
however much the media wants to push their polls. Of course in reality this
is just dreaming because the politicians want to be reelected. BUT we are in
a representative govt and thus we give these politicians our trust to carry
out what they believe to be our best interests using their own judgement. The
politician will always come back to his or her values and not those of the
majority of his or her constituents (some MOQers will disagree, but this is
how I HUMBLY BELIEVE it should be - leaders should lead not follow).
The idea that the republicans (at the House proceding) said that they would
consider their conscience and not the public thus made me feel that they are
more MOQ moral (from my above statements), but also depressed because they
will carry out a long, drawnout process that will only add to Static Social
Quality. The most productive is in the creation of dynamic social policies
(ie get back to work).
The Dynamic Quality (read always as beauty and love) of the working
Constitution is that it can be changed more easily than any other political
system ever before created. However it still takes several years for any
change to take place. The last time it was attempted was the Equal Rights
Amendment - almost two decades ago. How long did it take for political change
in the age of monarchies (which still has vestiges everywhere)?
We can look at the MOQ nature of change of the Constitution and how it really
reflects the values of the people and requires many decades of social change
to occur (thinking about our history of racism) but that really is another
(though important) topic.
But my point comes down to this - in a social contract, all we can really do
is follow the social contract or break it. The same goes to the procedings -
the republicans can't do want they want without breaking it - the votes are
just not there. If you follow the 'social contract' - the Constitution - then
THIS IS ALL JUST ANOTHER TRIAL. What ever we the public believe has nothing
to do with the procedings as in a regular trial. It's all up to the jury.
And because of the voting and the participants of the trial this is really a
struggle for POLITICAL POWER and nothing more.
To me the real culprit of immorality is the two party system that has put the
power in a less dynamic social body. And this was a result of the old guard
not wanting to relinquish power. A truer system would be more parlimentary
that would add the complexity of building a majority as in Japan and England.
It's less stable, but more dynamic - in a word - better QUALITY.
I know this totally ignores drose, david and platts polical points, but I like
it as using the MOQ to put a new perspective on everything. My own thoughts
are that in a perfect world the trial would be about if lying under oath in a
CIVIL trial is truly an obstruction of justice and an abuse of power of the
FEDERAL office of president. To me it's not and the criminal nature of
Clinton's actions are definately illegal, but of a civil nature and not
pertaining to his office. All the actions should be undertaken when he leaves
office and then he should be tried for perjury.
It's all a joke when you compare it to Nixon (used federal agents to
burglarize the Democrats! and this is besides the wiretaps and other crimes)
and Reagan/Bush (who used the office to break the law and sell arms and drugs
to the contras) To say that these things didn't happen is absolute denial.
That's my opinion
xcto
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