Re: MD Principles

john,

moq is for *thinking*. it is an attempt to improve reason and science - reconnect them with reality.

but thinking - something we all probably do too much of - is inherently about separation and analogy. it can't capture the real stuff, it can only help slough off the bullshit and perhaps point us towards the good stuff. this is of course what pirsig was trying to do. like you said the moq is inadequate - *all theories are, by definition, so* - but it is better than som.

the moral hierarchy in the moq should not be seen as personally *prescriptive*. this is not its role. its value lies in *thinking* about morality - explicating moral issues (many of which are very complex) in a way that sheds new light on these problems. it offers a new and better (than dogmatic religion and amoral science) perspective with which we can *think* about moral questions. but ('and what is good and what is not not good...'), on the personal level we usually don't need to think at all to know what we want - what is good. indeed thought just gets in the way or becomes 'rationalisation': justifying what we know is wrong/bad. the moq is a *descriptive* moral system.

oh and according to gav:

democracy is a high quality intellectual pattern

love is DQ

terrorism (this is the toughie) is generally thought of as a low quality as far as social patterns go (threatens the state). of course in reality the opposite is true - terrorism *reinforces* the state. the USA is a perfect example of this. terrorism is valued by the social level.

cheers

gav