[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[skutvik at online.no]

Platt 

10 Aug. 

According to DMB Pirsig have said: 

    "The MOQ would add a fourth stage where the term "God" is 
    completely dropped as a relic of an evil social suppression of 
    intellectual and Dynamic freedom. The MOQ is not just 
    atheistic in this regard. It is anti-theistic."  

I don't deny it, but wonder where this quote is from, perhaps "Lila's 
Child". A fourth stage? Is that the 4th. level? Anyway social patterns 
aren't particularly "evil" seen from the MOQ, it merely says that the 
various static levels regard the lower one as evil, hence intellect's 
animosity re. social value. So the MOQ isn't anti-theistic, its anti-level 
and because intellect is the last and most fortified level - as SOM in 
the Western culture - it (the MOQ) is mostly anti-intellectual.    

> Personally I'm glad Pirsig wasn't around to refute the Declaration of
> Independence which, if anything, freed intellect and DQ from political
> repression, leading directly to freedom of religion as an individual
> right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

You're right, the Declaration of Independence" was/is also a 
declaration of freedom of worship. Religions as a social patterns aren't 
merely belief in God(s) but God as in the "Semitic" sense most clearly 
displayed in Islam which is an ideology - like communism - and 
freedom of worship is  absent, apostasy a capital crime.  The MOQ 
approves of  this (DoI) intellectual victory over social value, Europe of 
late sixteenth century was still much in the grip of religion as ideology 
used for social rectification. But the 4th. level - like all levels when in 
total control - churned on and on and on and by and by created a 
"social nightmare" ... as we know .    

--------------------------

>From your other post that date about "the good dog" you wrote: 
  
> The "Aristotelian framework" is what I consider the intellectual level to
> be,  dominated by S/O patterns. By contrast, John Wooden Leg experiences
> within a moral framework dominated by value patterns. Of the two paintings
> in the gallery of "truth," I find John's of higher quality. 

For some reason Pirsig had dropped the SOM in LILA, but from ZAMM 
we know that Aristotle was regarded a chief figure in SOM's evolution 
so again we get a proof for the intellect=SOM. In my "jesuitic" view Q-
Intellect isn't a something dominated by S/O patterns, it IS the very 
SOM and "the framework dominated by value" is the MOQ that by no 
twist of logic can be an intellectual sub-set.

   
Bodvar