Jonathan,
I agree with you in stating that there is no more need to pursue further
political arguments. What was that Pirsig quote (maybe I should ask Platt),
the one where he said something like, "The way to improve the world is not
through political arguments, which are inevitably dualistic, full of subjects
and objects. The way to improve the world is through one's own head and
hands. Some people want to talk about changing the world, I just want to
maintain my motorcycle. I think in the end I am doing more for the world."
That quote, mangled by me, who left ZAMM in his dorm room and came home for
the weekend to study finals but ended up playing Nintendo with his little
brother the whole time, has always hit me as the crux of Pirsig's whole
message. Quit bickering and produce something.
I also agree with your second point. Static laws are only to be broken if it
is morally imperative upon someone or something to do so. That sort of
epitomizes the emptiness of the 90s generation. In the 60s there were all
kinds of static patterns in need of being broken: civil rights, women's
rights, etc. Lots of music dealt with that kind of stuff. But in the 90s,
we had singers use the same techniques to grab the attention of people. But
once they got the attention, they didn't know what to do with it. My 9th
grade history teacher summed up this dearth of social consciousness well:
"Hey man, F you."
"Okay, you've got my attention, now what?
"I don't know, F you."
This is an example of breaking the static censorship patterns, which should
be done to get a point across, but in the majority of these cases was no
point to get across. (Bart Simpson on liberals: "We need another Vietnam to
thin out their ranks.)
In the Brujo example in Lila, the Zuni had to be punished for doing a moral
thing because if they did not punish him, they would have to let a thousand
others break static laws for no other reason than they felt like breaking
laws; there would be no way to tell the "saints from the degenerates."
I liked your biology analogy as well. Only thing I would add is that
survival of organisms is prolonged also by migrations and possible
interbreeding with other species, not just mutations. Survival is dependant
upon a species' being aware of its surroundings as well. Also, mutations are
random and are not decided upon by the species, while the decision to
introduce a new Dynamic pattern is made by humans or a group of humans. But
I'm still unsure about whether or not human beings consciously make decisions
leading to DQ or whether nature sort of plays through human beings to benefit
a society or a species as a whole. Perhaps that's more a question of a
religious nature.
Lastly, let me offer condolences about the recent bombings. I hope no one
close to you was harmed. I was appalled by this statement from Platt:
You must really check in more often if for no
other reason than to let us know you are not a victim of a Hamas
suicide bomber
and I hope you didn't take offense to that. I, like most people, don't view
the attacks with levity.
Rasheed
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 - 16:01:41 BST