[MD] The MoQ.org STRANGLES Creativity

[Case]

[dmb]
As I understand it, the MOQ says we gotta get rid of the theism. That's the 
bathwater. This is where the family values crowd goes wrong. We gotta get 
rid of the idea that marriage and all the other sexual moral codes are 
sanctioned by God and replace it with the idea that they serve an 
evolutionary purpose, that they serve life, not God. That's the baby. When 
that distinction and we've dusted off and re-examined these codes in the 
light of a broader evolutionary scheme, then we stand a better chance of 
treating violations with some sense of perspective and proportion. And when 
we see that all human being are also animals with animal appitites, when we 
see that nobody with a body is immune, forgiveness doesn't really enter the 
equation so much as sympathy, eh? yea, people like to have sex, but that's 
certainly no big surprize.

[Case]
It is hopelessly naïve of the MoQ to think that theism is going any where.
The best it can be hoped for is to pull the plug, change the water and
perhaps adding a bit of fragrance to the soap. If evolutionary interests are
served, isn't "reason" just a cloud of soap bubbles? From a personal
perspective I have long sided with Elliot, "The last temptation is the
greatest treason. To do the right thing, for the wrong reason." But on a
social level I am no longer so sure. During that course of my life I have
seen nothing but backsliding. 

Americans have never been big on reason and even so great and exemplar of
the rational political animal as Robert McNamara, in the documentary 'The
Fog of War" concludes that Rationalism will not say us. Christians are if
nothing else capable of being shamed and the "theologians" of the right are
shameful lot. Their very view of the Bible is nothing short of blasphemy.
The Reformation concept of "sola scriptura" has been warped by them into the
notion of inerrancy. This is a view so obscenely silly that only the threat
of eternal damnation could make anyone consider it for more than a second.
How republicans and capitalists can co-opt the ideas of Jesus is nothing
short of intellectual alchemy. The man never wasted on opportunity to
lambaste the wealthy and powerful. His disciples are portrayed in Acts were
aggressively communist.

The fault here is not with the average lunch bucket in the pew so much as
with a clergy that is either aggressively ignorant or out right fraudulent.
Christianity has survived 2000 because it is plastic enough to met the
spiritual needs of Greek and African slaves, Roman emperors, European Kings
and Peruvian Indians. It survived the middle ages and the enlightenment. It
will survive modernity and postmodernity (which sounds futuristic to me).

It is after all a social organism. I suspect it can easily resurrect itself
from large piles of lion poop; easily outstripping SCARF's ability to
procure federal grants.

Arlo said:
The "freedom" versus "order" battle is fought on all MOQ levels, as DQ and 
SQ seek harmony. Static intellectual patterns can be as restrictive of 
"freedom" on the intellectual level, as static social patterns can be on the

social level.

dmb says:
Exactly. When freedom and order are seen in terms of the Dynamic/Static 
split then they have an entirely different relationship. I mean, the common 
sense idea that freedom means freedom FROM the social order goes right out 
the window. Not that Pirsig is advocating conformity of course. But the 
DQ/sq split truns the relationship from freedom VERSUS order to a 
relationship where freedom DEPENDS on order. 

[Case]
I think this focus on the interaction of SQ and DQ at any level is far more
useful than all the talk about how one level is better than another. 


[dmb]
In this view evolution is not a definance of the existing order so much as
an expansion or additon to it. 
For example, the way the MOQ asks us to dust off the social level codes. And

just as the human animal had to give up certain things when society came 
along, things like theft, rape and murder, so we have to give up certain 
social level things now that intellect has come along. I mean, things like 
racism, sexism, and all that chosen people kind of stuff is the vestiage of 
our evolutionary history. But shedding some obsolete features is not the 
same as trashing or defying the point and purpose of these lower codes. Its 
just part of the taming, guiding process. Or so it seems to me.

[Case]
Evolution is a response to change. Change is with us always. If the MoQ is
seen as balance between SQ and DQ then it too is all about the maintaining
harmony in the face of constant change.

I am not sure I see your meaning about rape theft and murder being the norm
before the intellect came along, though. As social creatures I believe those
evils were moderated socially long before intellect came along. As for race
and sex isms those really only began to seem even a little odd in the last
half of the last millennium. Frankly we have handled them pretty well
considering. From an MoQ point of view they interest me because of the rate
at which a need for change was demanded and implemented. It is the rate of
change overall that is the most significant challenge for the future.