<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1255">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3059" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Dear Participants: Today we begin our study in Session
Four. If the first of our sessions concentrated on sociology (witness the live
presence of Peter Berger); the second, Midrash (on the question of the
Commandments); and our third, theology (in the presence of scientific inquiry),
the fourth is basically upon ethical theory. It appears here in the form
of the question of binding values, even absolute ones, in an age of
autonomy, an age in which people choose and "have" values rather than the
pre-modern situatuion in which values have THEM. It turns out that the issue of
"absolute values" is double-tiered, and not, on one level, far removed from the
"deliberative" way we think of moral and other valuative matters.A basic
distinction we make here is between juxtaposing good to evil in
contradistinction to "good "and better" in a specific situation. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Let's begin with Rabbi Dessler. Would he handle the
problem of Joseph's "honoring his fatrher" in the deliberative fashion that the
midrash in Source No. 4 does? How WOULD he deal with the dilemma posed in the
Joseph story? What critique would Dessler have of the way "moderns" deliberate,
what basic flaw does he see in it? What is your reaction to the way Rabbi
Dessler thinks about the conflict between the good and the evil impulse. HOW DO
YOU THINK OF VALUATIVE DECISION MAKING? ?</FONT><FONT face=Arial>We begin
our fourth chapter. Have a good week. Michael
Rosenak</FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>