[MD] Another parallel

[MarshaV]

Dave,

I agree with John.  This post seemed to me to be 
your social level political opinion propped up 
with MoQ rhetoric, and it didn't 
work.  Statements like "everybody knows", "The 
conservatives think", "The liberals think" 
"Obviously," are what???  Baloney.  Who do you 
think you have the ability to speak for???

One side of that coin is a pathetic as the other side.

imho


Marsha









At 07:23 PM 7/11/2009, you wrote:

>Ron said to Dave and John:
>
>I think it helps the discusion to specify that 
>the term "intellectual values" in this case 
>refers to objectivism and it's values. 
>Intellectual objective values vs. intellectual 
>victorian social values. which dominated the 
>intellectual level. Objectivism was victorian 
>societies servant, the servant of intellectual 
>patterns that placed social values at the pinnacle of importance.
>
>dmb says:
>That's pretty confusing, Ron. In fact, the 
>phrase "intellectual victorian social values" 
>contains an inherent contradiction that destroys 
>the distinction between social values and 
>intellectual values. Also, objectivity is the 
>defect in the intellectual level, not the level itself.
>
>But you raise a good point and I should be more 
>explicit about what is meant by "intellectual values".
>
>In chapter 24, where the moral codes are 
>presented in the context of these political 
>conflicts, it says, "what is meant by 'human 
>rights' is usually the moral code of intellect 
>vs. society, the moral right of intellect to be 
>free of social control. Freedom of speech; 
>freedom of assembly, of travel; trial by jury; 
>habeas corpus; government by consent - these 
>'human rights' are all intellect vs. society 
>issues. According to the MOQ these 'human 
>rights' have not just a sentimental basis, but a 
>rational, metaphysical basis. They are essential 
>to the evolution of a higher level of life from 
>a lower level of life. They are for real. But 
>what the MOQ also makes clear is that this 
>intellect vs. society code of morals is not at 
>all the same as the society vs. biology codes of 
>morals that go back to a prehistoric time. They 
>are completely separate levels of morals. They should never be confused."
>
>See, the MOQ isn't asking anyone to exchange 
>scientific objectivity for morality. It is 
>saying that the intellectual level itself is a 
>kind of morality, a morality that is more 
>evolved than social level morality. It says the 
>laws that protect us from vice are just one set 
>of morals. That doesn't mean that intellectuals 
>don't have "family values" or that they think 
>it's okay to be a crack addict. The intellectual 
>doesn't have to be opposed to social values in 
>order to achieve this higher level of morality 
>but he will insist that human rights violations 
>are worse than getting drunk and cheating on your wife.
>Think about gay marriage and the "don't ask, 
>don't tell" policy of the military, for example. 
>That's a typical point of contention between the 
>left and right, it's in the news these days, and 
>everybody knows where the two parties stand on 
>this issue. Now think about these polar 
>positions in terms of what Pirsig says in the 
>quote above about the two codes of morality being "not at all the same".
>The conservatives think it's about sin and sex. 
>They see their position as a defense of society 
>against perverse biological values, mere 
>physical pleasure or vice. Obviously, this is 
>the society vs biology code. The liberals think 
>it's a human rights issue. They see themselves 
>as defending the principles of human rights and 
>equality against traditional bigotry and hate. 
>This is the intellect vs. society code.
>
>The odd thing is, if these rights were given 
>equally to gay people they could only use them 
>to get married and serve in the military, both 
>of which are things generally applauded by 
>conservatism, but these policies would have no 
>effect on anyone's actual sex life. When gay 
>rights issues are seen in terms of mere vice, 
>their desire for the right to get married is 
>taken as an insult to the institution, 
>especially by those who take it as essentially a 
>religious vow within their faith. To some extent 
>this point is granted and so the notion of a 
>"civil union" went into circulation. That way, 
>the traditional form of marriage could be 
>preserved while gay people still get the same legal rights as any other couple.
>
>Practically speaking, I guess that's a pretty 
>decent compromise. But the MOQ says that 
>whenever social values conflict with 
>intellectual values, the moral thing to do is 
>assert the higher level over the lower one. To 
>my mind, this means that human rights violations 
>are a crime no matter who does the violating, 
>and that includes the churches. It is strange 
>and ironic that the churches and the moralizers 
>should be defending this lesser morality. In the 
>MOQ, that's a kind of evil. And to my mind, it's 
>just plain mean and unreasonable and unfair.
>
>Anyway, I think the MOQ's analysis sorts these 
>things out quite nicely. Of course it also helps 
>to know something about history and current 
>events and the connections between them. 
>Obviously, a person can only apply the MOQ's 
>analysis to things they understand pretty well in the first place.
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.
>http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009
>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/




"Compassion diminishes fright about your own pain 
and increases inner strength." ~His Holiness, the Dalai Lama