Oisín:
I enjoyed, and agree with, what you said about the state vs. society. I'd
like to delve a bit more deeply into one part, alluded to by the following
passages.
> The State is not synonymous with "Society."
and
> Neither The State, nor even 'Society,' has an Intellect. Only people have
> access to the Intellectual Level. Hence, only people have the ultimate right
> of self-defense. States do not have Rights, only People.
and
> Arguing that any State has the so-called "right" to defend itself against
> another State, or proto-state force, or any threat, is - at best - choosing
> the lesser evil from among two evils.
First, I agree with all of these statements and arguments. I think you have
made a very important point by drawing a clear distinction between a society
and a state. One of the problems of war--one of the causes, perhaps--is the
tendency to see one's state as one's society, and someone else's state as a
different society. States don't define the boundaries of societies any more
than belief systems define the boundaries of individuals. (Although that
last is not a debate I want to enter at the moment.)
However, the "one world" view, though idealistically pleasing, isn't
supportable either, so far as I can see--certainly not by MoQ. There is a
multiplicity of elements and compounds at the level of matter. There is a
multiplicity of organisms and species at the biological level. And there is
a multiplicity of belief systems at the intellectual level. So, by
inference at least, there is every reason to believe that there is a
multiplicity of societies. That leaves open the possibility of war as a
conflict not just between states, but between societies.
Taking the hypothetical case of a war that is a conflict between societies,
your statement that, "War is the wholesale reversion to the Biological Level
(to ostensibly achieve Social Ends)..." still holds true. But, within each
society, what is experienced is an attack on the biological basis of that
society by an external agent. From the society's point of view it scarcely
matters what level that threat comes from. That society is still performing
a moral action, in MoQ terms, if it defends itself.
I agree completely that, "States do not have Rights, only People," because
only people have access to the intellectual level. "Rights" are an
invention of the intellectual level to protect itself from the social level.
(Strictly speaking, I think history shows that the modern, western concept
of rights evolved purely at the social level, as landowners sought more
robust mechanisms to protect their claims to real property. But the concept
itself has evolved into a static pattern at the intellectual level,
protecting individual intellect from the avariciousness of the social
level.) However, as I'm sure you know, a thing can be the right thing to do
whether or not it is your right to do it. In MoQ terms, it is moral for a
society to defend itself from attack if that attack comes from the same, or
a lower, level. So I don't see any MoQ-based argument against a society
defending itself from another society.
However, that doesn't answer the question of whether, in a given situation,
we have two societies in conflict, or merely two states that are actually
aspects of the same society. This is a very slippery question, and I
haven't thought it through to any firm conclusions yet. World War I was
arguably in the second case, a conflict between multiple states that really
only represented different facets of the same society. If true, that would
make it unjustifiable even at the strictly social level--a snake eating its
tail. World War II, on the other hand, appears to be a more clear case of
different societies in conflict. Specifically, it appears to be a conflict
between a society that was attempting to make the intellectual level
subservient to itself (represented by the axis powers) and a society
characterised more by the dominance of the intellectual level (represented
by the allied powers). (I apologize if I have offended anyone here on
ethnic or nationalist grounds; that is not my intent.) Whether the present
conflict represents a conflict between two societies, or merely a conflict
between multiple states within a single society, is a question that I hope
others in this group will take up.
To summarize my ramblings so far: I agree that states do not have rights,
of self-defense or otherwise, and I agree that states and societies are not
the same; I do not agree that it is not moral--based on MoQ--for a society
to defend itself with force, although I'm not certain that you are arguing
that it is. Perhaps you can clarify your view on that.
What I would like to discuss next is the final assertion that I quoted
above, that (to paraphrase) arguing that a state has the right to defend
itself is at best choosing between the lesser of two evils. If I understand
you correctly, you are alluding to the question of the morality of war at
the intellectual level. In other words, for me, as an individual, to say,
"this war is justified because my state has the right to defend itself from
this other state," is to choose between the lesser of two evils. What, in
your view, are the two evils? Is one evil the destruction of war, and the
other evil the destruction of my society (and perhaps me, personally)? Or
is one evil the destruction of war and the other evil the destruction of
worthwhile ideas? In the first case, your assertion that I am choosing the
lesser of two evils seems to be true. In the second case, though, MoQ would
seem to make it possible to choose wisely between the two evils.
If the war threatens the intellectual level (as I have submitted that WWII
did), then the lesser evil of defending the intellectual level is a far
lesser evil indeed! It is in fact the essence of MoQ morality, it seems to
me, to make such an intellectual choice. Is that the situation we are
presented with today, vis-à-vis the conflict in Afghanistan? I have no
compunction about saying that the terrorists represent a biological and
social pattern that is directly attacking an intellectual pattern (the
values and ideals of western society). The terrorists themselves have
clearly stated that, although not in MoQ terms. However, that doesn't let
us off the hook completely. There is still the question of whether we could
deal with this threat, whether we can defend our intellectual patterns of
value, without resorting to biological destruction.
I'm going to commit and say that, in the present situation, it would be a
mistake not to protect our intellectual patterns of value using the tools
that the social level puts at our disposal (i.e. states and state armies).
I do, though, think it's very important that we are aware that this is what
we are doing, and that we not simply defend our "way of life" (i.e. our
social patterns of value).
It seems very clear to me that the terrorists mean quite specifically to
attack the intellectual patterns of value that western society is based on.
It seems equally clear to me that these intellectual patterns are superior
to the patterns the terrorists would replace them with. In fact, it appears
to me that the terrorists have no intellectual patterns of value at all, but
are operating strictly at the social and biological levels. And they are a
threat that is clearly growing, and clearly capable of doing tremendous
damage to western intellectual value patterns. I don't think it is
far-fetched to imagine a future dark age dominated by the value patterns of
the terrorists, much as Europe saw a dark age dominated by similar value
patterns in the early Christian era. (I do not mean to make a comparison
here between contemporary Islam and mediaeval Christianity. I do, however,
very explicitly mean to compare contemporary Islam_ism_ with mediaeval
Christian oligarchies.) Perhaps that would be part of a larger, Dynamic
pattern leading to an upward latching of intellectualism, much as the dark
ages in Europe were followed by the Enlightenment. But I do not believe
that Osama bin Laden is analogous to Pirsig's brujo. I find it
inconceivable that he represents an intellectual pattern of value that will
be worthwhile to us in some future intellectual domain. But perhaps that
just reflects a limitation of my own prejudice.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
Canada
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 - 16:01:36 BST