Greetings to one and all.
If the MOQ stands for anything it is for the value of the truth - a system
which is open to the truth and the reality of the situation is one that is
of higher quality than one which is not. In this case, an analysis that is
driven by emotional (biological) reactions is one that is of lower quality
than one that integrates those emotional reactions with calm reason. So in
that spirit I would like to suggest the following theses (acknowledging, as
a Brit, that they qualify as bollocks). And for the record I write as
someone with great admiration for the culture of the USA (inherited from the
best of English culture), despite its faults, and in the coming months and
years of war I think those of us who criticise the US - often with
justification - need to remember who the good guys are. The culture of the
US/West IS of higher quality than the alternatives, and of infinitely higher
quality than that of the Taliban etc.
Thesis one: Those who resorted to the terrorist attacks last week susbcribe
to intellectual patterns of pathologically low quality.
I think it is a mistake to say that the perpetrators are driven by
biological values; to say that is to persist in the flawed secular mindset
that Pirsig has done so much to undermine. The mindset of the perpetrators
can be understood - but it requires an understanding of the nature of
religious belief, amongst other things. However, although I will come on to
some of the reasons *why* this intellectual pattern has come into being, the
most important thing to my mind is that it is low quality (another way of
saying that it is untrue) and also that it is now virulently attacking the
larger, dominant culture. I do think that this terrorism can be compared to
a virus or a cancer, but it is not a question of biology vs intellect, but
of cancerous intellect vs (fairly) healthy intellect (just as a cancerous
cell is still a cell, not, eg a bacterium).
Thesis two: The West, especially the US, bears a responsibility for
encouraging the conditions within which this pathological intellectual
pattern has been able to flourish.
In other words, it is rather like someone who smokes bearing a
responsibility for the lung cancer that sets in many years later. To be
fair, I think the vast majority of US citizens have been sublimely unaware
of the consequences of their actions, but ignorance is no excuse in the
sight of the law. To list some of the prinicipal factors: i) the idolisation
of material gratification, most especially cheap oil; ii) the sanctions
campaign against Iraq; iii) the contempt for international norms (eg Kyoto;
international court of criminal justice); iv) third world debt; v) the
sponsorship of state terrorism (Chile, Nicaragua, Israel etc). I could go
on, and doubtless this argument is raging in various places, and it doesn't
need to be rubbed in.
Thesis three: Military force cannot defeat an intellectual pattern.
This seems axiomatic to me, but lets spell out what it would mean in
practice. The Taliban are firmly rooted in both Afghanistan and Pakistan,
with strong links to Saudi Arabia too. A military attack on them will not
succeed in eliminating all those who subscribe to those beliefs, and indeed
it would be taken as confirmation of their governing paradigm - that the US
is the great Satan indulging in a crusade against the true believers. A
gloomy scenario would go something like this: US attacks Taliban and
succeeds in killing/capturing Bin Laden. Bin Laden becomes a martyr and hero
to the cause. The government of Pakistan topples to a coup led by the ISI
(Pakistan secret services - closely allied with the Taliban). The Taliban
then have access to nuclear weapons and the resources of a more modern
state. Not good. A more apocalyptic view would have Saudi Arabia changing to
a Taliban led government as well, and turning off the oil taps - but that
form of Armageddon can wait for an analysis elsewhere.
Thesis four: An intellectual pattern succeeds and flourishes in so far as it
shows itself of higher value than the alternatives (ie closer to the truth,
and more profitable for individual believers)
If the West is to succeed in this war, then it must win the battle for the
hearts and minds of people in the Muslim world, removing the wells of hatred
from which the fundamentalists drink. A military victory is a necessary part
of that, but it is not sufficient. I would suggest that the strategic
victory can only be accomplished by: a change in US foreign policy towards
the Muslim world - indeed towards all of the third world, demonstrating the
generosity which I know is a real part of the American nature. It also
requires a multilateral approach, and a submission to a higher form of law
than the individual state - a truly dynamic development, on the lines of the
European Union. Although the US is in the lead, it cannot win this on its
own.
Sam
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