[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[david buchanan]

Steve said to dmb:
A distinction between intellectual and social values can be used to make the case we both want to make. The problem is that it has the same problem that the religious have in trying to make a political case in religious terms. ...We would have to convert everyone to Pirsigism before making such an argument, so I'd like to find another way of stating the problem. Perhaps theocracy isn't the right term around which to build a coalition between liberal believers and atheists, but I'll give it some more thought.

dmb says:
Well, no. I think one of the best things about the way Pirsig frames the issue is the way it comports with the facts of our history. A person could use the conflict between social and intellectual values to analyze the situation but making the case could be done without even using the terms "social" or "intellectual" or "levels". I mean, the MOQ offers a way to think about what has actually happened and so it doesn't require any conversions to Pirsigism.
People tend to think that the levels are Pirsig's uniquely or that he invented these categories out of thin air. Not so. The levels of the MOQ are based on lines that have been drawn long ago and are widely recognized outside the context of the MOQ or any other metaphysics. It doesn't take a MOQer to see that myth differs from logic or that rocks differ from birds, you know? This is empirically based stuff and not faith-based in any way. I don't think any serious person doubts the idea that cultures evolve and you are very unlikely to ever find a psychologist who denies that individual people evolve (or develop) in similar ways. The social sciences can and should be used to make the case too, of course. I think the facts of history, anthropology, sociology and political science support the idea and these facts could be presented quite coherently without even mentioning the terms of the MOQ. 

As far as building a coalition around some rallying point goes, I think the notion of religious freedom is deeply loved all over the planet, not just in the U.S. or the Western world. That notion is already enshrined in our highest laws and it is already one of the best expressions of intellectual value. I also think that the people who oppose that right are easily portrayed as ignorant clowns, if not monsters. 

Have you heard about the conservative Christian guy whose calling for a ban on building permits for Mosques? Newt Gingrich is speaking out against building a Mosque at ground zero in NYC, even though it's a cultural center and not a mosque and it's going to be build 4 blocks away from the world trade center site. When people complained that such a ban is a violation of religious freedom, Newt pointed out that the Saudis don't allow churches in their country. I guess he figures that religious freedom only applies to some religions and some people in some places, depending on whatever makes Newt comfortable. These are the kind of views that deserve to be laughed off the stage and I don't think you need a fancy metaphysical premise to accomplish that. That facts and the law are more than enough. Some cash would help, but that's just about volume and reach.


> 
> Best,
> Steve
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html