[MD] A Balanced MOQ Society

[Christoffer Ivarsson]

Hello Bodvar, I wrote some answers/objections/input on what you wrote 
before.

And I changed the headline, because I don't like how everything meld into 
one big thread, hope it's ok with everyone. I think this title is somewhat 
relevant tat the moment anyway.


[Chris]
>> If I understand you correctly you state that socialism undermines the
>> social level, my natural question thus becomes: how so? Seeing as you
>> live in a socialist country more like my own than not perhaps you can
>> give me some meaningful insight here.

[Bodvar]
> I may have painted myself into a corner by stating that the MOQ mesh
> is too coarse for catching the various "isms"  and then saying that
> socialism correspond to Q-intellect. But really, all Western political
> movements are (now) generally Q-intellect in the sense of accepting
> democracy. The naked social value is now displayed in the muslim
> world, just for that reason of religion is their overarching authority.

[Chis]
I have a small problem with the sense of democracy being a goal in itself. I 
do not believe that just because a society is a democracy it is Q-intellect 
driven, nor do I think democracy is necessary for this. Democracy is a 
social pattern, come into being I think by crafting of the intellectual 
level, an ideally it should make it easier for intellectual value to be 
identified etc. But we know that is not always so, a democracy is only 
Q-intellect driven if the majority of the people are. If they are not, the 
form of government doesn't matter.
For instance, here is the social level at work:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the 
Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, With 
Liberty and Justice for all."

The only way that becomes something that has anything to do with the 
intellectual level is if the people reciting it actually reflect over what 
the words mean, and I doubt they do that all the time, thus chanting "Liberty" 
or "Sieg Heil" or "Allah Ackbar" may be just as much the social level at 
work. It all depends.

[Chris]
>> But in a general sense I also wish to have your input on this my
>> assertion: I understand completely that the social level is about
>> liberation from the biological level, or in any case, about
>> redirecting biological recourses into following Quality that is not
>> biologically derived and interpreted. The reason why I see it as the
>> most natural thing in the world for a MOQist to sympathise with the
>> general ideas and themes of Marxism is because it can be categorized
>> as a recipe for rearranging social patterns to serve the intellectual
>> level: something that is evolutionary moral in the MOQ view.
>> What is your input on this?

[Bodvar]
> You are absolutely correct about intellect's purpose, but no static level
> knows a limit to itself. Biology (life) will eat and proliferate until the
> inorganic source is depleted, Society will coerce all individuals under
> its "mythology" whatever its name . Look to the pure Muslim (Taleban)
> societies where the true believers gladly sacrifices themselves to instill
> fear of God (their mythology) and this goes for the 4th. level too. We
> must skip SOM's view of "intellect" as the thinking faculty, and adopt
> MOQ's view of it as objectivity that knows no limit either and will
> "sacrifice" society to achieve its goal.

[Chris]
Agreed. Mostly. But if we where to see an intellectually guided society as a 
society where rationality always had supremacy over things like "patriotism" 
and stuff like that, then we would have a Q-society I think. Provided that 
we understood the need for balance and flexibility.

[Bodvar]
> And Pirsig's point in LILA is that intellect has done its job so well that
> the social values of suppressing biology reels, it has (according to him)
> joined forces with biology in its struggle with Society by refusing to
> punish murder and other grave crime properly. I know this is highly
> controversial because without knowing the MOQ there is just
> SOCIETY (in the sociological sense) that is the cause of crime by not
> being perfect. Sweden and Norway have their armies of "sosionomar"
> who heaps scorn on all efforts to limit the criminals, all prisoners
> should be released, because there is always an OBJECTICE reason
> for their career, no free will.
> Well, I no advocate of the death penalty or dungeons, but I see Pirsig's
> point, however I don't see his idea that the MOQ will reform intellect by
> being a better intellectual pattern. Q-intellect is solely a MOQ
> construction and hence not easy to grasp, we so easily lapses back
> into a thinking faulty and that any "thought" is an intellectual and even
> Pirsig falls into this pit. The 4th. level is static, its value the
> OBJECTIVE attitude (the S/O distinction) and can by no means
> change its "stripes", it can only be limited by a level above it and in 
> this
> respect the MOQ forms a meta-level.

[Chris]
Again, I have to agree on the major points, but, still, if we adopt a MOQ 
view, we must see that to maintain a balance between the levels, society 
should be arranged so that rationality sets the rules for the social level, 
and the social level sets the rules for the biological. I say rationality 
because it is a clear and powerful IPoV, that serves a Good purpose, because 
it is clearly better to have a society guided by rationality then by social 
values that can be "traditional family values" "Freedom is always the best 
thing" "Follow the Will of God" "the Free Market will fix everything" "some 
people are better than others" "some ways of living are wrong" etc etc etc - 
I mean, these things are examples of social values, and they don't need to 
be based in any rationality: so if you ask Sarah Palin why being a 
homosexual is wrong, she doesn't have to answer rationally, not if what she's 
saying is the norm. Just like Hitler didn't need to base the same thing in 
rationality.

OK for now. I await your answer on the other question.


>> I would greatly Value your input on this.

> Thanks for your confidence Christoffer.

It comes easily when you deal with a Quality debater =)


Regards

Chris