Hi Horse:
Great to see you back on the MD in your usual robust form. I thorougly
enjoyed your many absolutist views, especially your conviction that
"fuzziness is an extremely useful concept," a concept you must truly
hold in high esteem since you rely on it so often.
I notice also you continue to take great offense at my calling you a
"pacifist," even suggesting that it amounts to an ad hominem attack.
I'm puzzled as to why you are not proud to be thought of in the same
breath with Jesus, Ghandi and Martin Luther King.
So much to discuss. So many points to clarify. One stands out,
however, that I would like to highlight. It begins with the following:
> 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.
You followed this with a reasoned explanation of the many varied
factors that go into an intelligent assessment of comparative societies.
However, my question sprang from a passage in LILA where Pirsig
says one can judge cultures in a more fundamental way. I know you
dislike my use of quotes, but here goes anyway. From Chapter 24:
"Cultures are not the source of all morals, only a limited set of morals.
Cultures can be graded and judged morally according to their
contribution to the evolution of life. A culture that supports the
dominance of social values over biological values is an absolutely
superior culture to one that does not, and a culture that supports the
dominance of intellectual values over social values is absolutely
superior to one that does not. It is immoral to speak against a people
because of the color of their skin, or any other genetic characteristic
because these are not changeable and don't matter anyway. But it is
not immoral to speak against a person because of his cultural
characteristics if those cultural characteristics are immoral. These are
changeable and they do matter."
Two questions:
1. Do you agree with Pirsig?
2. Using Pirsig's standard, is it fair to conclude that the West, all things
considered, supports a dominance of intellectual values compared to
Islam where social values are dominant?
My answers are, naturally, yes and yes. But I wonder what yours will be
and if this is another place where you disagree with Pirsig.
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 - 16:01:38 BST