Hi Horse:
You wrote:
> One of the reasons I find it hard to take your argument seriously is illustrated by the
> following:
>
> PIRSIG:
> "Biological quality is necessary to the survival of life. But when it
> threatens to dominate and destroy society, biological quality
> becomes evil itself, the "Great Satan" of twentieth century
> Western culture. One reason why fundamentalist Moslem cultures
> have become so fanatic in their hatred of the West is that it has
> released the biological forces of evil that Islam has fought for
> centuries to control."
> Chapter 24 - Lila
>
> On 11 Oct 2001 at 13:32, Platt Holden wrote:
>
> > It's hard for me to leave Pirsig's "quotes aside for awhile" because they
> > tells us what the MOQ means. You are right, of course, that we can take
> > the levels as Pirsig presented them and assign to them whatever
> > meanings we wish. But if we are looking for what Pirsig says about the
> > levels, then it seems to me we are limited pretty much to what he says,
> > not what we would like him to say. We can surely disagree with the
> > MOQ, but first we have to agree on what to disagree about.
> >
>
> On 14 Oct 2001 at 9:33, Platt Holden wrote:
>
> > Yes, I pondered that passage many times and concluded that Pirsig is
> > simply wrong in assigning the blame for Moslem hatred of the West on
> > our release of biological forces of evil. What they really hate is our
> > release of the intellectual forces of freedom that threaten their
> > fundamentalist social religious forces.
>
>
> So where it is convenient to (mis)use Pirsigs quotes to support your beliefs you do
> so and where it isn't you just reject what he says as wrong.
>
> It is quite obvious from the Pirsig quote that he considers at least a part of the
> current conflict to be Social, which is completely at odds with what you have said in
> the past on this very subject.
What makes it hard for me to take your arguments seriously is 1) your
convenient omission of some of what I say when it suits you and 2)
your inability to make distinctions. Examples are easily seen from what
you've written above. You apparently cannot distinguish between
agreeing ON what Pirsig says and agreeing WITH what he says. Nor
can you distinguish between the emotion of hate and a criminal act.
"Hatred of the West" is not the same as "an attack of the West." (Germs
don't hate but they do attack.) I said I disagreed with Pirsig's reason for
Moslem hatred of the West, not on what he said, and immediately
followed that with a paragraph that you omitted which said that when a
society, like the American South in the Civil War era, perceives a threat
to their society from another society, they have a right to attack the
threat. You not only left that out but the other points I made about
Pirsig's justification of war. You also avoided addressing the issue of
which society is more moral, Islam or the West? I am still waiting for
your answer.
> On 14 Oct 2001 at 9:33, Platt Holden wrote:
>
> > If you think the MOQ takes the pacifist position that war is
> > immoral, youre wrong.
>
> If you are to argue coherently with me Platt then it would be useful if you didn't
> misrepresent me where it suits you.
> I have repeatedly said that I am not a pacifist.
> I have not said that the MoQ takes the pacifist position W.R.T war - if you can show
> otherwise please do so.
"Pacifism--opposition to war or violence" (Random House dictionary). Horse,
post 5 Oct: "Dialogue and negotiation are the only means by which
terrorism will be defeated." I'll leave it to the reader to decide who is
misrepresenting who.
> On 14 Oct 2001 at 9:33, Platt Holden wrote:
>
> > When in doubt, accuse your opponent of being simplistic.
>
> When this is correct I see no problem in pointing out the obvious. You have tried to
> reduce the entire argument to a conflict of Biological patterns by misusing sections
> of Lila and rejecting what Pirsig says where it fails to suit you. My accusations are
> reasonable and accurate.
Nonsense. Nowhere have I said this is a conflict of biological patterns.
It is social patterns vs. biological patterns. Your accusations are
hysterical and plain wrong.
> On 14 Oct 2001 at 9:33, Platt Holden wrote:
>
> > Aren't you stretching it a bit, Horse? Nobody is saying people are literally germs.
> > What I (and Pirsig) am saying is that criminals act like germs and
> > should be treated accordingly. I know you can tell the difference
> > between a fact, a metaphor and a simile, so it puzzles me why you
> > keep insisting that germs and people are in fact identical. (You have to
> > enjoy the irony of germ-like terrorists threatening to use germ warfare.)
>
> Platt, when you say:
>
> > PLATT:
> > "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."
>
> you are effectively saying that a class of people are the equivalent of germs which in
> MoQ-ese is saying that some instances created by all 4 patterns of Value and
> capable of responding to Dynamic Quality are the equivalent of other instances
> created by the two lowest level patterns of Value and not capable of responding to
> Dynamic Quality in an equivalent manner. This is clearly ridiculous.
What's clearly ridiculous is your inability to distinguish between a real
germ and a metaphorical germ. You have yet to to explain what you
think Pirsig meant when he wrote the following and why he referred to
germs:
"Intellectuals must . . . limit or destroy destructive biological patterns
with complete moral ruthlessness, the way a doctor destroys germs,
before those biological patterns destroy civilization itself." (24)
Platt
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 - 16:01:34 BST