Dear Platt,
You wrote 14/9 13:41 -0400:
"I interpret the MOQ view to be that those who are terrorists and
those countries who support and/or tolerate terrorists have the
moral standing of germs and like germs must be deliberately and
ruthlessly annihilated by all means at our disposal."
and 16/9 9:21 -0400:
"'Society can handle biology alone by means of prisons and guns
and police and the military. But when the intellectuals in
control of society take biology's side against society then
society is caught in a cross fire
from which is has no protection.' LILA, Chap. 24.
No further comment required."
Please take care how you use these analogies...
Both doctors and germs are part of biological patterns, humanity
and microbes & viruses respectively. Even backed by social
patterns to enforce hygiene and by intellectual patterns to
select proper medicines, doctors cannot annihilate germs. (Only
very few if any illnesses caused by germs have been exterminated
by modern medicine.) Whereas it is perfectly moral for a doctor
to kill the germs in his patient from a human point of view, it
is also perfectly moral from the point of view of the microbes
and viruses that they go to attack the patient and to kill him if
they find him weak enough. Both humanity and microbes & viruses
are part of a wider biological pattern, the global ecosystem, in
which they both have a proper role. (Well, at least the microbes
& viruses have. Humanity may have outgrown its niche and may be
in need of curbing if the ecosystem is to survive. But that is
another subject.) When modern medicine first discovered the
relation between germs and illnesses and that an illness could be
stopped by poisoning the germs, it did not have selective poisons
at its disposal yet. Some doctors made the mistake to kill the
germs and to kill the patient in the process. Today modern
medicine has antibiotics. By unwise utilization of antibiotics it
is now creating multiple resistant germs.
A wise doctor does not try to kill the germs himself, let alone t
ry to annihilate them. He strengthens the patient's own immune
system and his natural boundaries (mucous membranes and skin).
Striking back when attacked and preventive attack as well,
Jonathan, are parts of a very old social pattern of value. The
political theory of terrorism has been formulated time and again
both on the right (reactionary) and on the left (revolutionary)
side of the political spectrum. Its core is Machiavelli's "the
goal sanctifies the means". It strives to destroy social patterns
of value in order to re-establish something old (reaction) or to
establish something new (revolution). Osama bin Laden is only a
part of that intellectual pattern of value operating on the
reactionary side (trying to re-establish social patterns of value
upholding and upheld by what he sees as the fundamentals of
Islam). If it is moral for any intellectual pattern of value to
destroy any social pattern of value it feels threatened by, then
terrorism would be moral in a MoQ sense...
It's not so simple though. It's always an intellectual pattern of
value that feeds on and supports social patterns of value that
feed on and support biological patterns of value that conflict
with another intellectual pattern of value that feeds on and
supports social patterns of value that feed on and support
biological patterns of value. When humans are involved, it is
never an intellectual pattern of value that is in conflict with
one or more social patterns of value and never a social pattern
of value that is in conflict with biological patterns of value.
Pirsig tried to make his MoQ into a foundation for an ethics too
easily.
Yesterday the newspaper I read featured an interview with Maulana
Sami ul Haq, director of Haqania, the school in Pakistan where
80% of the Taliban leadership went to school. He is an old friend
of Osama bin Laden. He didn't speak Bin Laden recently though
because "the Taliban have taken all means of communication from
him: he has no telephone any more and is not allowed to work with
internet. I don't know how Bin Laden feels at present, but it is
clear that he can't be behind the the attacks. Without facilities
he can't possibly have ordered them." Ul Haq maybe trying to
create an alibi for an old friend, but it may also be true. Maybe
Bin Laden and other theorists of terrorism have simply spread the
intellectual pattern of terrorism and left it to those they
indoctrinated (and to some extent financed and trained) to plan
and organize for themselves... They may just be part of the
pattern without being the (sole) originators of the attacks.
Killing Bin Laden will for sure not kill the pattern of
terrorism, it may even strengthen is when the wrong kind of
poison is applied. Strenghtening the immune system etc. of the
inpoverished and disintegrated societies on which terrorism feeds
and to which terrorism restores bits of self-esteem, by sharing
our wealth (and maybe even our political power) migth be the
wisest road.
With friendly greetings,
Wim Nusselder
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:30 BST