[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[David Thomas]

Hi Krimel,
> 
> [Krimel]
> I think the problem is that you see "repairing" the MoQ as a matter of
> fixing levels. I think the answer is more fundamental. The levels are just a
> test drive of the MoQ. They are a way of deriving meaning in certain
> contexts in a certain way. They are "rules of thumb" or heuristics. They are
> not laws or metaphysical primitives. Moving the boundary lines around is
> just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
> 
> It is find to talk about levels but I think that discussion is only helpful
> to the extent that it applies to something significant in some particular
> instance. Some other set of levels might apply in some other set of
> circumstances. As I have said before we construct levels on the fly to
> understand what is happening in the here and now.
> 
> Good as Pirsig's picture in a gallery image is, maybe it needs a bit of
> tweaking too. It isn't just a matter of which pictures in the gallery strike
> our fancy. It is also a matter of where we chose to stand in the gallery,
> how near or how far from this painting or that, whether we look at the
> pictures in portrait or landscape mode or upside down. Point of View (POV)
> is every bit as important as Pattern of Value (POV).

You may very well be right. The problem with our take, as I see it, is that
it leads logically to full blown relativism. Where Quality is everything
which is "JUST what I (or you) like it to be."  I alone get to choose the
levels, and choose the point of view to interpret them from and you do the
same. Does that not best describe anarchy or the Babel myth. Why bother with
philosophy, ethics, morals? Maybe Rorty was right that philosophy is a form
of literature just like history or a novel. All being basically fiction from
one point of view.

I got to nearly 50 on what An Rynd characterized as " a whole bunch of
unwarranted conclusions" and I have seen little to warrant that dabbling in
philosophy has improved the quality of my life or understanding of reality
in any significance way since. Commenting on how Pirsig's MoQ is interpreted
is basically intellectual entertainment or masturbation. All depending on
your POV.

Dave