My apologies for the delay in response, I've been out of the loop while
travelling for the past while.
on 11/7/01 8:12 AM, Tedd McHenry at tedd@mchenry.ca wrote:
> 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.
Yes, okay. Perhaps I could expand upon my rant too, by suggesting that
"State-ness" and "War-waging" are of the same essence, or at least coeval.
> ... 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.
Fair enough.
> "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.)
The Intellectual Level co-opts a Social-Level apparatus for it's own
purposes. A real revolution.
> 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.
If I'm starving, stealing bread to stay alive is more moral than my dying to
preserve property-rights. This is what I was trying to get at with my
"lesser of two evils" riff.
> ... it appears to be a conflict
> between a society that was attempting to make the intellectual level
> subservient to itself ...
A good parallel between Fascism and the Taliban...
> and a society
> characterised more by the dominance of the intellectual level (represented
> by the allied powers)
... and that would be 'us'
> ... 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.
This may sound very jesuitical: they could be considered within the same
society/civilisation, if our definition of such were limited to one in which
force/violence were the fundamental tools of social organisation. The mark
of Cain, so to speak.
This would not imply equivalency of use within, and results from it, of
course.
It would follow that in this civilisation, some regimes allow for a high
quality of life, internally. But between regimes, relations could still
operate on the level of a caveman and his club - Henry Kissenger would
probably agree that this is 'Realpolitik' in international affairs.
> 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.
OK, sure. I think The State is - at best - a set of Biological Means to
Social Ends. This does indeed mean it can be used to defend a society.
However, in the same way that our Genes care not a whit about their
individual phenotypes' (that's us, sort of) welfare and happiness, The
State, as an entity between the Biological and Social sectors, need not
necessarily care a whit about the welfare of nodes of Intellect, or even of
higher Society. IMHO There is always a danger that it becomes an end in
itself, a self-sustaining entity cut off from higher levels. Pirsig's
comments about individual organisms being devoured for the 'greater good',
come to mind.
Another way to put this, is that by using a lower-quality entity as a
tool for higher quality purposes, we run the risk of confusing the two. As
the Taliban already do.
> 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)?
Actually, that wasn't specifically on my mind, but that works well.
Yes, defense of one's community (not equivalent to defence of a State and
it's apparatchiks/imperial caste) seems a natural/moral cause of agression.
> Or
> is one evil the destruction of war and the other evil the destruction of
> worthwhile ideas? ...
I don't think O.b.L. or the Taliban are any kind of Brujos either.
The Taliban are Social forces run amok, a great big fascist blob trying to
eat-up all other levels. OBL is the poster-boy of respectibility for them.
He is hardly a 'rebel without a cause' either. Indeed, he is a rebel with a
very well-defined and ruthless 'cause' (or rationale). Theirs is a revolt
against evolution.
On the _Intellectual_ Level, to borrow Platt's refrain, I think that their
ideas are at the level of an Intellectual virus. Very simple set of ideas
that explains/interacts with the world. Very attractive, you don't even have
to think a lot. A duality not of Subject/Object, or Dynamic/Static, but of
so-called Islam/everyone else. Their Big Idea is like a virus, on the cusp
of one level and another; like a virus, it spreads itself through the medium
of other ideas/sentiments (Chomsky's "resevoir of support"); like a virus it
relies on spreading itself through the destruction of other patterns.
I think what I was trying to get at, was that in saying that we
should/should not bomb Afghanistan, we are really arguing on the Social
Level, rather than on the Intellectual.
When we discuss the use of physical force, sure we can argue about it
using Intellectual methods, but can the use of physical force actually
directly change the Intellectual Level? Is physical force not a Biological
tool of the Social Level?
In addition, someone like myself is going to have a set of Social
patterns that will predispose me to argue in one way, and some one else
another, with regard to the use of Biological means. We end up arguing about
my Social patterns versus yours, and this is even further complicated by the
fact that we are _also_ arguing about some one else's Social patterns.
From the Intellectual Level, from a relative standpoint, this seems like
arguing about "the lesser of two evils" on two fronts.
I realise this does not preclude the use of Intellectual
inquiry/judgement, but yet it seems that it is Intellectual
inquiry/judgement in the service of "my" Social patterns - however moral (or
less evil, so to speak) they may be.
> ... 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.
I think I get what you mean, but I'm not sure it's actually possible to
attack Intellectual patterns directly with physical force. The Taliband
groupies would certainly like to believe that, but I think they assume that
the Intellectual Level is an appendix to the Social one, and they assume
that this is universal. They cannot understand the autonomy of these two
levels among other people.
If it were even possible that the Taliban could create two 100 story
buildings, and if they were destroyed along with lots of people inside,
their society might very well be destroyed along with them. They would
probably contain all the centralised organs of their State-Society.
These people have made the mistake of believing their own propoganda.
> 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).
At the risk of seeming like a complete crank (oh, what the hell), I would
actually think that "defending our way of life" would be a more honest
assessment and justification of the current war, qualified by assessing
honestly what our way of life implies in inter-State relations.
Certainly democracy, reign of law, and individual rights are extremely
valued and indespensible assets of my way of life, but I should not ignore
that many states who may not repress these internally, do so externally.
I have no insurmountable problem with the idea of defending these Social
assets of Intellect "by any means necessary"; I do have grave concerns about
how other Social interests may use this justification for long-term purposes
entirely inconsistent with the existence of these assets however.
> ... 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.
Nah.
Take care,
-Oisín
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