-----Original Message----- From: Mary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Saturday, February 13, 1999 7:33 AM Subject: MD: Clinton & the MOQ Hi Fintan, David, Horse, Jason... Fintan: > Intriguing analysis that shows our human vision is a mental > hologram centred in the pineal gland, in a single point. This > implies that we > live in morphogenic fields with a higher level than electromagnetism as > the medium of awareness. That's not quite what I got out of it, Fintan, but the science is fascinating. Could you explain about the morphogenic fields? I haven't had a chance to read Sheldrake yet. Moving to the Clinton discussion, I have a few thoughts on this eve of his redemption I'd like to share. You see, I grew up in Arkansas (Clinton's home state), and he was my Governor for several years before I moved away. Don't ask me how he managed to get elected in such a notoriously conservative state. I can only say that the past 20 years or so have seen a tremendous shift in the South away from a solidly Democratic base to a solidly Republican one. It actually goes back to the Civil War and has something to do with Republican Yankee carpetbaggers. People in the south have carried this grudge for over a century; only realizing lately that the modern version of the Republican party is actually more in line with their conservative leanings than the Democrats. Any Southerner could write an entire book on this subject, so I'll stop there. Yes, as someone pointed out, George Wallace was a Democrat, but that was then, this is now. I always liked Clinton, and I wasn't alone. Everybody except those with an axe to grind did too. He was young and dynamic and was an excellent spokesperson for our lowly state. There were rumors though. It was said (in the '70's) that he smoked marijuana that he bought at a Little Rock tavern called The Whitewater (deja vu all over again...). I frequented that establishment myself in those days, but never once actually saw him there or met anyone who had. I don't recall any rumours about womanizing at that time. Those rumours came much later. He always seemed pretty smart to us. And believe me, we needed a smart Governor. In case you're not up on your national statistics, Arkansas consistently ranks 49th out of 50 on education, income and other civilized things. Our unofficial motto was "Thank God for Mississippi!". The main thing you could say about Clinton was that he could charm the socks off the chair of the ladies auxiliary at the First Baptist Church while at the same time pushing for abortion rights. It was almost bazaar how he could do that - and still can do that today. You see, my take on it is that some pretty large portion of the American population is completely charmed by Bill Clinton. He can do no wrong. Logically, one would have thought the feminists would skewer him for messing around with an intern; after all Clarence Thomas (Supreme Court Justice) did practically the exact same thing with an employee and is roundly hated by feminists to this day. But noooo, quite the opposite has happened - and not just in the South either. He's got both the social and intellectual levels, and perhaps the biological as well sewed up in his hip pocket. Pirsig says charm is a social level value. It goes hand in hand with celebrity. Clinton screwed around with an intern, but so what? Practically everybody in that huge teaming group of people who grew up in the 60's and 70's either did or knows someone who did something similar or something worse. To condemn him smacks of hypocracy to them (ok, us), and hypocracy is the kiss of death to that generation. We are on the side of intellect, remember? But back to charm. The Republicans should have realized they were fighting a losing battle right from the start. The economy is doing great, we're not killing sons by the thousands in some far-off war, and women love him. Nobody other than a strict ideologue wants to get rid of him. Would Gore be better? No! No Charm! We've learned (albeit after the fact) that most of our most charming, memorable and beloved President's cheated on their wives too. Had our press and moral climate been the same at the time, would be have impeached FDR or Kennedy? Fairness, another social level value, is at work here. In the past decade or so we've come to learn all sorts of unsavory personal details about other Presidents. Should Clinton be removed from office when practically every other President of this century was guilty of the same crimes? Is it fair that the press refused to report it then but puts it on the front page now? Wouldn't most of those other Presidents have denied it too? It is fair to punish the one who happened to get caught when all the others got off scot-free? It's a speeding ticket kind of logic. Fairness runs as deep in the American psyche as charm or celebrity, while abstract indignation (another social level value) has lost it's grip. For those wishing to convict, the deck was stacked against them from the start. This was never a social vs intellectual level battle, if it were Clinton would probably be out of office tonight. Instead, it was a Victorian social level vs Hippie social level battle; and the Hippies outnumbered the Victorians. My best to all, Mary MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Hi Mary, I read your last post and I am afraid that I am a little lost here. I was just wondering how fairness is a social level? I am not passing a judgement, or challenging your view. I just thought that fairness would be an intellectual value. In other words isn't fairness really an intellectual idea that is Applied by a social group of biological people, who are made up of inorganic parts? Thanks, Jason Nelson MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
