[MD] The MOQ's First Principle

[david buchanan]

David M said to dmb:
I think this is far from clear: ...Surely sex and appetites are biological 
level in origin at least. When society develops I assume it supports values 
that help society to function as well as it can, so maybe democracy and 
human rights are based in social values but also point to intellectual ones 
because they are argued for intellectually and also support the individual 
against excess restrictions that are actually bad for society due to the 
dynamic benefits of intelllect and individual freedoms.

dmb says:
An intellectual argument FOR something doesn't change the nature of that 
thing. Hedonism makes a case for biological values, for example. And this 
would only undo one of several kinds of confusion in your "sentences". Think 
about this in terms of the principles I mentioned; social values control 
biology and intellectual values control society. Are human rights and 
democracy aimed at controlling the appetites of the organism? Are they aimed 
at overcoming gravity? No, of course not. They are aimed at putting the 
breaks on societies control over people. Freedom of speech, freedom of 
religion, freedom of association and assembly, freedom of conscience and all 
that sort of thing is aimed at protecting the freedom to think and say and 
believe regardless of whether or not society likes it.

It true that intellect depends on the health of society just like its true 
that scientists have to eat and stay warm at night. But I think if this 
truism is used to assert social values over intellectual values, even the 
one's that seem to threaten it, then you've missed the point of the MOQ's 
moral codes.

David M continued:
What do you think are the different values that really distinguish the 3rd 
and 4th levels? What are the values of science for example? Gaining control 
over nature? Is that not also the first value of society along, perhaps, 
with security for farmers and towns people over warriors?

dmb says;
Social values are all about control over nature with sex being the most 
intimate and powerful forces of nature. But it seems to me that technology 
is the application of scientific knowledge to the social level's concerns. 
The failure to recognize the distinction between social and intellectual 
values is a huge part of the problem. Think of atomic weapons, for example. 
The discoveries of science, when appropriated by social institution, can be 
really disasterous. Even on a personal level, there are lots of people with 
science degrees and see no problem with selling those skills to 
corporations, the "sell-outs", as Pirsig calls them, are immoral according 
to the MOQ. But the failure to recognize this, in a more general sense, is 
what's led to the fake, plastic feel of the world we've created with this 
technology. It is born of intellect, but just keeps on with the old goals of 
finding food and protecting us from the forces of nature, including those 
who would like to find the same food. Like the Victorians, intellect is 
still treated as a servant of society when it should be the other way 
around....

David M also said:
I imagine the key is whether individual freedoms and intellectual 
developments are enabling individuals and society to evolve and improve, so 
they need to maintain the gains of the social level whilst overcoming its 
restrictions, like, for example, the sexual inequality of traditional 
society.

dmb says:
The power and status of women in society is an excellent example. I won't 
repeat the conventional wisdom since everybody knows. Thinking about that 
public debate in terms of the MOQ's levels can clear up some confusion. All 
the levels are very much in play. We saw that political empowerment, changes 
in traditional gender roles and sexual freedom all arrived on the scene at 
the same time and we generally seen to be all of a piece. This is how the 
hippies confused bq with DQ, etc.. But in the MOQ we can see that there are 
several horses in that race and hopefully sort out which is which. That way 
we can avoid inadvertantly advocating hedonism or Victorian reaction or 
stepping on somebody's rights by confusing expression with vice. A society 
guided by intellectual principles should treat inequality as a tragedy and 
crime.

Ask yourself a question, David M. What institutions and ideologies in our 
culture do the most to stand in the way of that goal? Who and what opposes 
equality? Make a list. That list will tell you who defends social level 
values and what they are.

Thanks,
dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger. 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://get.live.com/messenger/overview