Bo, All
> If something positive will come from this monstrosity is that we -
> slowly - are becoming aware of the value base of our culture.
Agreed, (if we change to "value base[s] of our culture[s]") and then get
to the point that we understand that:
> Morality is not a simple set of rules. It's a very complex struggle of conflicting
> patterns of values. This conflict is the residue of evolution. As new patterns
> evolve they come into conflict with old ones. Each stage of evolution creates in
> its wake a wash of problems. Pirsig, Robert M., Lila. An inquiry into morals.
> New York (Bantam Books) 1991, 163
I'm now thinking the thread question can better be approached with
questions like, "What values enabled these actions?" or "What
conflicting patterns of value predicated these actions ?", "Manifested
them?"
I agree,
> ... the search for an explanation still circles round the
> economical/political as if we only have these two "templates".
and this IMHO is a shallow, incomplete view. Considering the full range
of values from physical to intellectual the first obvious oversights
would be faith and will. Nineteen men (and probably hundreds of other
direct supporters) did not take this action without unswerving faith and
unshakable will. What enables these unshakable values? One of the oldest
patterns of value and the one that most, and particularly Americans,
wish to avoid mentioning is: RELIGION. The purveyor extraordinar of
FAITH and the unfortunate consequence, fanaticism.
Unless one has, to use James' expression, 'the will to believe", "the
faith" in the very old social/religious pattern of value that "a better
place or state awaits the faithful after ones death" and unless these
values are so strongly held that they dominant and overrule the
biological "will to survive" actions such as these would not have been
possible.
Some might see this as a frontal assault on religion, and to a limited
degree, it is. I think the MoQ indicates that it is a necessary
evolutionary step that we move beyond religions that are primarily
focused or rooted in the social level. And the majority of
practitioners of "Western" or "Abrahamic" religions, including Islam,
operate by and large at this level. The "priest" level.
> "Static quality, the moral force of the priests, emerges in the wake of Dynamic
> Quality. It is old and complex. It always contains a component of memory." pg. 133
Unfortunately human memory seems very selective in remembering past
mistakes. The primary method these religions have used and continue to
use to transmit these values is rote teaching of words evoking present
authority based on unquestioning acceptance of current interpretations
of past authorities. Whence came the original authority? Individual
mystical experience! Individual, ineffable, post-noetic experience!
Individual experience so overwhelming, so awesome, so beyond the
intellect, to be expressed or described by words! What are these
religions based on? The Word! A collection of old static and often
deadly words which describe and proscribe actions, that are not
primarily designed to lead to a mystical experience or insight, but to
better life after death.
Contrast this to Eastern approaches, like Zen, which is primarily
focused on leading one to this mystical experience in ones lifetime and
differences in conceivable acts of faith become apparent.
To devotees of "Western" religions let me say, before you 'flame' away,
that I understand that I'm neither and know this is a gross, overly
broad, generalization of both perspectives. And I am sure you can point
to any number of specific practices and words that disagree with these
characterizations, but read on just a little further before you send
them.
As naive nonpolitical youngster, for purely personal reasons,
volunteered for the Navy during the Vietnam conflict. After two years of
training and another two on a "luxury hotel" (aircraft carrier) in the
Gulf of Tonkin I returned home physically and emotionally untouched. I
thought. But merging back in to college life and being exposed to values
that considered me a "baby killer" ended my naivety and peace of mind.
And the image that did it for me was not the naked, terror struck
children of Me Lai. No it was the one of the Buddhist monk setting
himself on fire in the middle of a road. Compare if you will that act of
faith with those of September 11th and I think you will understand that
there is faith, then there is real faith.
There is terror, and then there is real terror.
And in the end one action was moral, one was not.
And both were influenced in a large part by the values instilled by
their religions.
3WD
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 - 16:01:33 BST