[MD] The MOQ's First Principle

[David M]

Hi DMB

Thanks for the below, I think what you say is useful
and helps but a few questions remain with me. See comments
below.

David M

> dmb says:
> An intellectual argument FOR something doesn't change the nature of that
> thing.

DM: Agreed.

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.

DM: What are the purposes and benefits of controlling society? Who/what
benefits? What values are realised by this control?

 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.

DM: Is not democracy about changing social structures and decision making,
giving decision making to all rather than elites? Is this not about 
improving
society, taking society from one stage to another? This may improve life
for individuals but it is also about improving society's functioning.


 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.

DM: But these freedoms are realised via social structures and will only
be embraced by society if they are a benefit to society, so what exactly
makes them intellectual? Is it a matter of what values benefit from these
social structures? Is that a useful way to define this?

>
> 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.

DM: Isit not important whether they 'seem' or actually do threaten to
undo what society has latched?

> 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.

DM: Agreed, so intellectual capacities can be used to support social values?

> 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....

DM: Yes this is a problem, how can intellectual values assert themselves?

>
> 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.

DM: Yes, I think it is would be very useful if the MOQ could make these
sort of distinctions clear and back the right horses.

 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.

DM: Indeed.

>
> 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.

DM: Yes,I think that would work. Good. Some useful suggestions here.