Jonathan and MD.
In the present situation it is not much MoQ-related stuff to find, so I
open this from a hundred or so messages back.
You wrote:
> Much as I feel a strong desire within this forum, I note that all our
> various differences are still there. If the horrific terror attak last
> Tuesday has any meaning, it should help us shape our view of the MoQ.
.....and the MoQ shape our view of the affairs.
> I already expressed my dislike for the simplistic formula of
> Intellectual values (us) vs. Social values (the terrorists). Tony
> Blair said something yesterday that shook me up for its metaphysical
> implications: "We believe in reason". I'm sure that he didn't think
> much about it, but what he said, to put belief before reason, is very
> MoQish and very unSOMish.
Simplistic? First, we aren't solely Intellect, but our culture is greatly
influenced by "reason". IMO Blair's words confirm the Social vs
Intellectual view, and puts reason (Intellect) before belief (Society)
instead of the other way round as you say ... but something may
elude me.
> It might be said that our adversaries too
> believe in reason.
Not if "our adversaries" are the Islamic fundamentalists. Reason
was born out of the Greek S/O idea that hibernated during the Dark
Age and reborn as Enlightenment which ended religion's long
career as THE frame of reference. If chronology holds
Mohammedanism is due for a "Renaissance" of their own in the
next century
> Since, they identify the USA as the great Satan.
> their attack on the USA is entirely rational.
Perhaps you could say logical, but not "rational".
> It is thus important to
> understand that reason is much more than rationality. If you start
> with a bad ethic
Reason IS rationality if the above argument holds, and I have never
heard of a "bad ethic".
> and then apply logic, monstrosities are created, such
> as these terror movements with their immoral social values and their
> subsequent intellectual perversions of it.
I know it's impossible in the present situation to speak of "value" in
connection with the horrible acts. The American people - and every
decent person in this world - have the right to revert to the
emotional plane and just hate. Lance Morrow writes in the special
issue of TIME magazine:
> > "For once, let's have no fatuous rhetoric about "healing".
> > Healing is inappropriate now, and dangerous. There will be time
> > later for tears and sorrow. A day cannot live in infamy without
> > the nourishment of rage. let's have rage".
Nevertheless, the leaders should return to the intellectual level
before taking action ... had they just known about this distinction.
> The other issue that makes me uncomfortable is the DQ=good formula
> that keeps appearing in this forum.
I agree.
> As far as the USA (and most of us)
> are concerned, the terror attack was very dynamic, coming completely
> unexpectedly out of the clear blue sky (literally). When those planes
> hit the Twin Towers, they rocked . . . with catastrophic results. The
> potential was there and the terrorists brought about its realization.
> For the victims of the attack, this dynamic event was a catastrophe -
> just like the meteorite that supposedly ended the reign of the
> dinosaurs.
All this I agree with, but the attacks will not make the slightest
dent in the American "dinosaur" economy.
> However, these people were not dinosaurs. They offered an alternative
> potential that has now been eliminated. Think of all the stories that
> will never be told, books never written, children never conceived.
> Unfortunately there is no going back. The realization of DQ always
> brings about a new reality and comes at the expense of the
> alternatives.
> Now, lets come back to pragmatic issues. I now realize how much of our
> society relies on trust. Just a short while ago, I was driving safely
> on the correct side of the road, just like all the other cars on the
> road. We all trusted each other to follow this simple rule, yet it
> would be so easy for someone to break that rule and cause a horrible
> accident. Last Tuesday, the normal rules of airline travel were
> broken.
True.
> Even the "normal" etiquette of hijacking was broken - no
> demands, no hostages. It's scary how easy it was to do such damage
> armed with just airline tickets and knives. Presumably, people who
> would do this would have no qualms about using any means at their
> disposal to kill and maim.
Also true, but I believe that such a thing can't be done more than
once, airliners will be modified and procedures changed. Of course,
we may think of thousand new ways to kill and maim, but
somehow this weapon is spent. Sheik Osama - or whoever - did
the most stupid thing possible.
> President Bush has called for revenge and this is something I oppose.
> Revenge is a motivation from the past - futile when you realize that
> there is no going back. HOWEVER (in very big capitals), I will remind
> you all of what I wrote to Platt a few weeks ago: Real defense PREMPTS
> the threat - it is PREaction, not reaction. The world must take action
> NOW to ensure that similar terrorist acts do not happen in the future.
> If the USA finds Bin Laden to be responsible and succeeds in
> eliminating him and his cronies, many of us will breathe easier. Had
> someone eliminated him a year ago, maybe New York would look a little
> different today.
I also find it counter-productive to ask for retaliation in the "eye for
an eye" sense - not even high-tech such. The scenario that now
shows with the US co-operating with the neighbouring states is
doubly effective and honorabe. If it makes the Talibans hand
Osama over voluntarily it's better than another martyr.
Bo
PS
Jeremy wrote:
> Contrary to what the media is saying these 'evil'* forces are in a
> movement for the reinsertion of social values. It is my belief that
> they may have a moral obligation to do so. America, on the other hand,
> puts forth the freedom of the intellect. It is moral to do so but they
> are doing so at the consequence of society. Just as you don't
> strengthen a society by killing the intellect, you don't strengthen
> the intellect by killing society. The problem is that there is no
> sight of compromise between these views. But there is a compromise and
> it's contained in a Quote by Pirsig I haven't ever seen posted here.
These are wise words and one of the few MoQ-related posts in the
present flood. I know that it sounds callous to speak about moral
regarding the suicide attacks, the 'struggle' term is so innocent,
but it may of course be deadly. Also thanks for the LILA quotes
....most appropriate.
>
>
>
>
> 'Dharma is duty. It is not external duty which is arbitrarily imposed
> by others. It is not any set of conventions which can be amended or
> repealed by legislation. Neither is it internal duty which is
> arbitrarily imposed by one's own conscience. Dharma is beyond all
> questions of what is internal and what is external. Dharma is Quality
> itself, the principle of "rightness" which gives structure and purpose
> to the evolution of all life and to the evolving understanding of the
> universe which life has created. ... It always has a social
> implication. It is the bond which holds society together. ... within
> modern Buddhist thought Dharma becomes the phenomenal world- the
> object of perception, thought or understanding. ... In the west
> progress seems to proceed by a series of spasms of alternating freedom
> and ritual. A revolution of freedom against old rituals produces a new
> order, which soon becomes another old ritual for the next generation
> to revolt against, on and on. ... you do not free yourself from static
> patterns by fighting them with contrary static patterns. ... you free
> yourself from static patterns by putting them to sleep. ... The danger
> has always been that the rituals, the static patterns, are mistaken
> for what they merely represent and are allowed to destroy the Dynamic
> Quality they were originally intended to preserve. ... In cultures
> without books ritual seems to be a public library for teaching the
> young and preserving common values and information. These rituals may
> be the connecting link between the social and intellectual levels of
> evolution. ... If ritual always comes first and intellectual
> principles always come later, then ritual cannot always be a decadent
> corruption of intellect.'
>
>
> pg 438-443
>
>
> Also,
> "If we pursue the path of blind vengence . . . we are guaranteeing
> that (a terrorist attack) will happen again. Military strikes will
> solve nothing . . . if thousands more innocent people are victimized
> in some other part of the world." NDP Leader Alexa McDonough.
>
>
> "This will be a long struggle with no easy solutions. One in which
> patience and wisdom are essential." PM Jean Chretien
>
>
> McDonough suggested an international court - a concept rejected by the
> U.S. - should handle the terrorists once they are captured.
>
>
> "No country should be called upon to be the judge, the jury and the
> executioner," she said.
>
>
> Duceppe also rejected the struggle of good and evil described by U.S.
> President George W. Bush.
>
>
> "We must not fall into the trap of a war of civilizations or
> religions," Duceppe told the Commons.
>
>
> Chretien drew his biggest applause of the day when he defended Arab
> and Muslim Canadians against a racial backlash.
>
>
> "The terrorists win when they export their hatred," the prime minister
> said to a standing ovation in the Commons.
>
>
> Jeremy Kirouac
> Also, riskybiz, you say Americans greed is the result of their concern
> with taking care of themselves and their family? Is that the story
> you're stickin with?
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 - 16:01:31 BST