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/
