[MD] Values

[MarshaV]

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/