[MD] What "moral revolution" is called for by the MOQ?

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Platt]
Not at all. Are you suggesting that everyone should get A's for their art?

[Arlo]
I'm saying that exposure to more art is a good thing. Too many these 
days are convinced "art" is what experts and afficianados tell them 
it is. Jeez, what are we even arguing about here??? All I said was 
that it was nice to be somewhere where "art" was brought out of the 
museums and into the daily activity of people. Art doesn't just 
belong in a museum, or in a recital hall, or on a stage in a 
well-sealed auditorium. It is the living, breathing Dynamism of life. 
And we need more of that, not less.

[Platt]
Yes, but it went wrong, as did the intellectuals in putting down the 
military and the police. The question is, if it went right, what 
would the world look like today?

[Arlo]
It went wrong because, as Pirsig said, it confused biological and 
Dynamic Quality.

Let me ask a pointed question. You are so adamant about social level 
control of the biological level, but you seem to want NO intellectual 
control of the social level. You use the MOQ to justify neo-Victorian 
restrictions to any biological activity you deem vulgar, but at the 
same time demand that intellectual control of the social level is immoral.

If we need to keep the door open to Dynamic Quality on the social 
level, and hence bar intellect from its rightful place of dominance 
over it. Why does this same thing not apply to society and biology? 
Why is "DQ" so important on the social level but meaningless on the 
biological level?

In other words, if intellect controlling society is "immoral" because 
it shuts the door to DQ, why does this also not make social control 
of biological quality also "immoral"?

Or, if it is so moral for society to dominate biology, because of the 
MOQ hierarchy, then I'd say its also so moral for intellect to 
dominate society. Or do you want to have it both ways? Absolute 
social control over biology, but no intellectual control whatsover 
over society? Why is one level "supposed" to be dominant over its 
predecessor, but the other not?

If it went right, I'd suspect we'd have more artists and 
philosophers, and that these pursuits would be the most meaningful 
and rewarded activities in our society.