[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[Krimel]

[Dave]
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.

[Krimel]
I don't see it quite that way after all what constrains our behavior and our
concepts is the experiences that give rise to both. The range of choice we
have in enacting a behavior or evaluating a concept is relative to present
circumstances. Our behaviors and beliefs are only arbitrary to the extent
that the conditions that give rise to them are arbitrary. I have not read
Rorty yet but the more I hear about him the more I look forward it. But I
would not use the term fiction. I would use illusion. I do think that all
conceptual frameworks are illusions. I just think that illusions are very
good things. Plus when you get the hang of the term, it puts eastern
thinking in a different and more meaningful light. Maya as friend and lover
rather than deceitful deceiver.

[Dave]
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.

[Krimel]
I think Rand was a heinous bitch, an immoral twit. But we can get along fine
without a formally stated philosophy or even without a lot of
conceptualizing at all. 

You say "masturbation" like it's a bad thing. Maybe you aren't doing it
right.