Greetings Ham, >[Ham] >Man cannot be truly free unless he acts on rational self-directed >value, which is behavior that takes into account the well-being of >his fellow man.
I don't really understand Buddhism, but your use of 'rational' in this post seems to raise it to the level of the MOQ's Dynamic Quality point-of-view. Too often it is used as justification for one's SPoV. I do not, though, think it should be limited to 'his fellow man'. I have experienced EVERYTHING as one breath, without differentiation, so for me to separate out man seems too limiting. >[Ham] >Quality implies what is universally good, whereas value reflects >what one enjoys, desires or aspires to. I maintain that it is a >mistake to equate these human sensibilities. Moral is another concept that has caused great confusion for me. But I think RMP has been expressing 'moral' from a Buddha's point-of-view. From this EVERYTHING/QUALITY point-of-view, man's personal desires/aspirations are limited. The QUALITY-VALUE-MORAL-GOOD is the indivisible, undefinable and unknowable. Damn words, they just get in the way!!! So, except for the anthropocentric point-of-view (which I acknowledge is the only one my mind has access to), I agree with everything you've written. Thanks for this post. The Swiss cheese mind, is my own. Marsha At 04:08 AM 10/4/2007, you wrote: >Hi SA -- > > > > > I think what your trying to imply here is that > > choice is ALWAYS involved, correct? So, yesterday, > > when I said to a resident they can either go to their > > bedroom, go to the Time Out Area, or sit at the table > > up front and in either case the resident will conduct > > a consequence whether it is writing in their bedroom > > or at the table or going in the Time Out Area. The > > resident was very elevated and explicit about not > > wanting to do either. Choices yes, but not choices > > everybody wants. > >Choice is always involved in what we do, but YOUR choice may not be what the >resident wants, because he/she has a choice, too. And it will be on that >choice that the resident acts. What you have illustrated by this example is >the proprietary nature of value and the freedom to choose. You can lay down >a rule (law) which states that residents must at a certain time go to the >Time Out area, or impose a curfew at, say, 9:00 P.M. Laws and Morality are >universally applicable. They restrict the freedom to choose, and the >incentive to obey them is avoiding punishment. Not so, values. I may want >to read a book, you may want to walk in the woods, your resident may want to >watch TV. > >Setting a law may change one's behavior, but it won't change one's values. >A person may be considered morally good because he does what he's "supposed >to" -- obeys all laws and gives a share of his wealth to the poor, for >example. Being moral is behaving as one is supposed to, for the good of the >society. We can't judge values by a collective standard of what's good and >not good. Yet it's our choice of values that makes us what we are. That's >why, when an MoQer says something like socialism is a "high quality" idea, >he's speaking from a moral perspective, not a valuistic one. Quality >implies what is universally good, whereas value reflects what one enjoys, >desires or aspires to. I maintain that it is a mistake to equate these >human sensibilities. > >Man cannot be truly free unless he acts on rational self-directed value, >which is behavior that takes into account the well-being of his fellow man. > >--Ham > > >Moq_Discuss mailing list >Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >Archives: >http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
