MD human rights and dignity

i want to talk about platt's 'live and let live' credo and some things that have been happening lately.

my sister has spent the last week in the australian desert protesting at the mandatory imprisonment of refugees that come to australia 'illegally' (unfortunately it is pretty difficult to get here 'legally' from afghanistan). she and about 1000 others had planned a peaceful vigil: a gesture of solidarity and good will towards the refugees whose chronic isolation and barbaric treatment has led many to go on hunger strike, even going so far as to sew their lips together as a symbol of their desperation. when my sister arrived at woomera and set up camp it was decided that they would all go to the concentration camp and show their support - offer gifts etc. when they got to the perimeter fence many refugees came to meet them and the power of their desperation hit the peaceful protest like a hammer. as one, the protest pulled against the fence, opening a small gap. about forty refugees escaped. the guards were unprepared for the numbers and passion of the protesters. my sister said it was the most powerful experience of her life.

the reality of the (illegal) barbarity that is inflicted upon already traumatised poeple (many children) in the names of all australians is obscured or diluted by the distance and the filters that operate between 'us' and 'them'. media reports focus on the violence of refugees (detsroying their cages and harming themelves) and protesters (pulling down fences), whilst ignoring the unbelievable cruelty inflicted upon these poeple in the camps (they are called 'animals' by the guards of these privately run prisons. they are beaten, drugged and isolated without access to paper and pencils, TV, phones). but when reality comes calling it leaves no room for rationalisations.

the reality of the refugee camps is there whether we know of it or not. when we do become aware of it (and for the citizen there is the obligation to make themselves aware of it) we need to transcend the distance, as well as the verbal diarrhoea of government and media. this is the purpose of intellect. once the necessary pain of this step is taken there needs to be an output: the transmutation of knowledge into action. silence is consent. if this doesn't happen the individual will internalise the pain and become violent and/or depressed. dignity cannot survive inaction here. ignorance can indeed seem like bliss when in this situation.

we are seeing another good example of citizenship in israel. israel's illegal and barbaric actions against palestine are encouraged by the US. this is truly horrific stuff. however one of the pieces of news you won't get on CNN or ABC or whatever rubbish you have over there is the refusal of over one thousand israeli soldiers to take part in this massacre. most of these soldiers will end up in jail. their actions are a good example of intellectual (recognising the injustice of the 'war') over social value (doing what is legal - what your state tells you to do). reports of any israeli dissent to sharon and the stupid and cruel policies of his government are conspicuous by there absence from mainstream media.

what i am trying to show through a couple of topical examples is that platt's principle (live and let live) requires *action* not just from those confronted first hand with harsh reality, but all individuals. for protesters and soldiers the reality is more immediate, more obvious. the moral imperative becomes too real to ignore. but we are all responsible for the injustices that are perpetrated *in our name*. platt's credo is a great one - the old golden rule - but words are easy.

gav

 

hey all,

Platt: "In the MOQ, intellect per se is SOM no matter how many times you say
otherwise--the pattern of amoral objective that has messed up society
by taking biology's side. It's in Chapter 24 of LILA. You really should
read it again sometime."

gav: this is disingenuous at best. SOM is relatively low quality intellect, compared to MOQ and the many thinkers throughout history who have not been total SOMites.

the refinement of intellect is what pirsig is about. period.

now...who has moral authority? well according to the individual DQ, then intellect, then society..... . so who perceives DQ and where do ideas develop? - *individuals* i know this is basic but let's say it anyway: moral authority resides with individuals. this is an existential ethic (matt kundert's essays at moq.org on existentialism and camus are very good on this). briefly, each individual is free and totally responsible for their actions. there is always choice. free will resides in the intellectual level (pirsig's treatment of the free will question is flawed...i think diana covered this some time ago) - it is about being an authentic individual.

now one is not born an individual - a citizen, an ubermensch. indeed the majority never become true individuals in the existentialist sense. growing up is that period when moral authority is external to the individual - parents, teachers, police etc. like dogs in the company of humans, most people remain adolescent for life (only immature dogs bark). this is because they are not given the experiences and education that develops intellectual value - freeing them from conflicting (with intellect) social controls.

but a development period is obviously necessary, even in the best of worlds. moral authority will be external (to some extent) to the young and adolescent. 'coming of age' is that rite of passage, ignored in the west, where moral authority shifts from others to the individual. before this, moral authority should *still* reside with (other) individuals, not  laws or systems (which is very SOM - the abstract over the real). parents, elders and the immediate community are where moral authority should reside for the immature person.

gav