Hi Platt and All
On 25 Oct 2001 at 12:39, Platt Holden wrote:
> > 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.
PLATT:
1) your convenient omission of some of what I say when it suits you
HORSE:
Just as you do Platt by omitting the above passage by Pirsig which negates
much of your attempt to reduce the argument to a simplistic, purely Biological level spat. However, please note that at
no time do I say that the Social level conflict is the entire conflict nor that there is no element of Biological conflict
involved.
Additionally you try to reduce my argument to pacifism (it isn't - see below) and then revert to ad hominem arguments
based upon an incorrect assessment of my position. This is more like a smear campaign than a discussion.
But in the interests of fairness let's include what you wrote:
PLATT:
But, if Pirsig is right, then yes, Islam is morally correct in attacking the
West to stamp out what they perceive are threats to their society, just
as the South attacked the North in our Civil War because their society
was threatened. When attacked, a society has the right to defend itself,
and thus we arrive at the present situation. The real question is, who is
more moral, the West or fundamentalist Islam? The MOQ answer is
obvious.
HORSE:
But according to you Pirsig is wrong so Islam is not correct so the rest of the statement is irrelevant to the argument and
thus my rebuttal still stands and my comments are still valid.
This is also not the first time that you have dismissed what Pirsig says where it happens to inconveniently conflict with
what you want to be the case. The morality of meat-eating comes to mind.
Please show me where I am failing to "distinguish between agreeing ON what Pirsig says and agreeing WITH what he
says". I am aware of WHAT Pirsig says but disagree with your interpretation - I even disagree with Pirsig at times, just
as you do.
I'm also interested in your statement that:
PLATT:
You also avoided addressing the issue of which society is more moral, Islam or the West? I am still waiting for your
answer.
HORSE:
We're talking here of Social Level conflicts are we not, which thereby reduces to which is the more dynamic pattern of
social values? I'm really not sure that I'm qualified to perform such a comparison without a great deal more knowledge.
I could base my response on the anti-Islamic propaganda that appears daily in the various propaganda machine outlets
but I'm not going to because I have a brain that works and this sort of pathetic tripe is for the idiots and racists that need
to believe Moslems / Communists / Socialists / Blacks / Jews etc are inferior. I believe that those that contribute to this
list are far beyond this.
I could succumb to bigotry and chauvinism and assume that because I am a 'Westerner' then obviously my constituent
social patterns of value are the 'Right' ones but I won't do that either.
I could base my response on the opinions of Chomsky, Edward Herman, Robert Weissman, Scott Burchill etc. whose
political leanings are probably closer to my own but again I'm not going to because they don't provide the whole picture.
I'm also not going to base my response exclusively on Lila as this is not the entirety of the MoQ - Pirsig considers it to
be about 1% I believe.
As has been pointed out the idea of 'The West' united in opposition to those evil Moslems is a convenient fiction. 'The
West' is a heterogeneous conglomeration of social (sub-) structures which share some values to an extent and is in
complete opposition with regard to other values. There is probably as much similarity between Islamic social patterns of
value and 'Western' values in some respects as there are differences in other respects. Are you going to try and
convince me that French patterns of social value are completely compatible with US, UK or Geman patterns of Social
Value - or even that social patterns of value within these sub-structures are compatible. In fact, there are Islamic
patterns of value embedded within French culture as there also are within UK culture. There are also 'Western' patterns
of value within various Islamic cultures - which are also not as homogenous as many poorly educated people would
believe - which give rise to Pirsig's comments. So 'Western' and Islamic patterns of value are not distinct sets but
overlap in many areas. Now let's throw in the Middle East and the whole Semitic scene. Israel (surely a part of 'The
West') is semitic but Jewish culture and Islamic culture derive from the same source so Islamic culture is also semitic in
derivation and share social patterns of value. So there is overlap here as well.
And when it comes to religious fundamentalism then I would say that from my experience and knowledge that many
Christian fundamentalists in the US could probably provide Bin Laden and the Taliban with a fair few pointers - they also
share similar social patterns of value.
At various levels within social patterns of value there are complex sub-patterns and sub-sub patterns. You may not have
seen this due, in part, to your preference for absolutes which we have discussed in the past. This is an indication of
where fuzziness is an extremely useful concept and is of fundamental importance to both complex patterns of value in
general and the MoQ in particular.
So the MoQ answer is not as obvious as you would have us believe - it is not obvious at all -and your belief that it is
obvious stems from your predeliction for absolutes which is probably why we disagree so often.
PLATT:
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."
HORSE:
I don't remember saying anything of the sort - this appears to be another case of YOU misrepresenting ME - but then
again we could quite easily use the same sentiments as above to illustrate the immorality of the US sponsored attacks
on various countries due to their irrational hatred of socialism and most definitely not some noble wish to liberate.
Perhaps you could show me where I fail to distinguish between the emotion of hate and a criminal act.
>
> > 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.
HORSE:
You still haven't answered my question about where I have said the MoQ takes the pacifist position W.R.T war. Here's
my side of the argument:
On 21 Sep 2001 at 10:00, Platt Holden wrote:
> P: What you seem to be saying is that war is not justifiable by any
> means under any circumstances. Is that what you're saying?
>
> H: As I didn’t say it that isn't what I meant.
>
> P: I’m glad you concede the point that war is sometimes necessary.
>
> H. Wouldn't deny it. I can't see any reason to justify it in these current circumstances
> though.
HORSE:
So quite obviously, once more you are misrepresenting me Platt. My reference is specifically directed at terrorism and
in particular, the current conflict - I have said in the past that war is moral in certain contexts and not in others. Are you
honestly expecting me or anyone else to say that there are no circumstances in which opposition to war or violence is
valid. If so then you are mistaken and if not then most people are pacifists which is also incorrect. Either way you are
misrepresenting me and misrepresenting pacifism. And even if I was a pacifist does this make my arguments
incorrect? Again you use the ad hominem argument where it suits you having complained when others use it against
you.
> > 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.
HORSE:
What you have said is:
On 28 Sep 2001 at 10:33, Platt Holden wrote:
PLATT:
Absolutely disagree. A terrorist doesn't have social or intellectual content
worthy of the name.
and
On 25 Sep 2001 at 10:56, Platt Holden wrote:
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."
whilst rejecting Pirsigs assertion that at least part of the problem is a Social level
conflict. This, to me is reduction to Biological level conflict.
Additionally, as it is certainly the case that the US has supported and tolerated terrorists and terrorism then this reduces
the US to the moral standing of germs (i.e. Biological)., which is further support for my assertion of reduction to
biological level conflict. As you made the assertion I can hardly be accused of misrepresenting you!
You could appeal to relativism I suppose as this approach would be entirely consistent with much of what your
arguments have effectively claimed.
> > 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.)
HORSE:
Well, it does look like those terrorists may have been of the home-grown variety given the apparent origin of the germ
warfare agent - the USA.
> >
> > 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)
HORSE:
As I have pointed out several times and as you have consistently ignored in your apparent fervour for extreme violence,
the destruction of biological patterns of value does not translate into "bombing them back to the stone age". Please
note that the option to LIMIT destructive biological patterns of value is also available. I'm sure that if Pirsig had meant to
say that in order to limit or destroy destructive patterns of value then we must additionally destroy social and intellectual
patterns of value and Dynamic Quality as well then he would have said it.
As I have also repeatedly said, there are circumstances where war is justifiable and moral. Circumstances which
threaten to "destroy civilization itself" justify this but terrorist attacks do not threaten to do any such thing. The biological
values of terrorism do not, in general threaten civilization or even most societies. In fact it is generally just the opposite
as the majority abhor this sort of sickening violence and it tends to strengthen social patterns of value as has been the
case recently. There is a balance here which needs to be kept in mind.
Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network is no more a threat to civilization than Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. They
are, at worst, criminals and should be dealt with accordingly.
PIRSIG:
"Because a value-centered Metaphysics of Quality is not tied to substance it is free to consider moral issues at higher
evolutionary levels than germs and fruits and vegetables. At these higher levels the issues become more interesting."
Neither 'Western' civilisation nor any other civilisation is at risk here and you consequently misuse and misinterpret
Pirsig by making this assumption.
Horse
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 - 16:01:38 BST