Hey MOQers:
I'm not anti-Semitic, but I'd like to have my foreskin back.
I'm not one of those flag-waving Americans who thinks Israel is above
criticism and I don't think that US policies in the region are beyond
reproach. Nor am I "radical" enough to think the killing of non-combatants
is justified by any cause. As Darryl said, there are no white hats.
(Keep 'em coming, Darryl. Instead of asking if Israel is a Theocracy, maybe
we ought just ask "how theocratic is it?". To which I'd answer, "very". And
obviously whenever religion drives their political decisions they get
themselves in deep trouble. Notions like "God's chosen people" and "the
promised land" are tough to hold while trying to share real estate with
folks of a different religion, etc.)
Pirsig...
«This [society vs. intellect] conflict explains the driving force behind
Hitler not as an insane search for power but as an all-consuming
glorification of social authority and hatred of intellectualism»
I'm not suggesting that Israel's government is anything like NAZI Germany or
that Sharon is motivated by anti-intellectualism. Considering their
historical relationship, such a suggestion would be obscene. In fact, I've
heard that copies of Mien Kampf are selling briskly on the West Bank and in
other Islamic communities all over the globe. I don't know if its really
true or not, but there truely is a kind of Islamic fascism going on these
days. So if we're going to compare anyone to Hitler... But the point of
using the Pirsig quote is that the same conflict is behind the situation in
the middle east; a not quite "all-consuming golification of social authority
and hatred" of anything that threatens it. We see two complex sets of social
values, two cultures fighting against a threat other than intellectual
values. (From a social level POV, I suppose intellectual values look
justlike a threatening alien culture.)
Reactionary movements are often primarily anti-intellectual, such as the
NAZI's were, but sometimes reaction can be precipitated by other threats and
humiliations. There was a strong element of this even for the original
Fascist reactionaries in Italy, Spain and Germany. They'd lost empires
colonies and wars, had serious money problems and were concerned with all
sorts of prestige issues too. And they were anti-intellectual because, in
part, those values tend to impose restrictions on their ability to solve
those prestige problems.
Fast forward to Yugoslavia before the breakup. There you had several
different languages, cultures and religions all living under the same laws.
old war politics aside, it worked relatively well for a while. But when Tito
fell and the various factions were allowed to reassert themselves every side
turned reactionary, each more right-wing than the next and the results were
little wars, gang rapes and attempted genocides.
And here in the USA, our reactionaries are the standard kind.
Anti-intellectual, often fundamentalists, racist, anti-feminist, anti-gay,
anti-hippie, anti-UN and anti-liberal. Its a view that would never confess,
recognize or admit its own core belief; freedom and human rights only
applies to themselves. And it seems the whole culture learched to the right
on 9/11.
Pirsig...
This soup of sentiments about logically nonexistent entities can be
straightened out by the Metaphysics of Quality. It says that what is meant
by "human rights" is usually the moral code of intellect-vs.-society, the
moral right of intellect to be free of social control. Freedom of speech;
freedom of assembly, of travel; trial by jury; habeas corpus; government by
consent-these "human rights" are all intellect-vs.-society issues. According
to the Metaphysics of Quality these "human rights" have not just a
sentimental basis, but a rational, metaphysical basis».
Israel is just like any other modern nation or culture, there is a full
spectrum of political views among the people, but the best liberal and
intellectual voices are marginalized and unheard. Both sides suffer from
this reactionary bent because both feel their very existence is at stake.
The region is not immune to the scourge of reaction. Its everywhere in the
modern world. That's the main conflict in this present historical period and
the middle east has only become the epitome of all that. It shows exactly
why intellectual values are needed in running things. The problem can't be
solved militarily or with any aspect of the social level. Social values are
the problem, not the solution. Israel has become a place where the fanatics
are running the show. Political power is held by factions and parties that
are essentially defined by various degrees of hawkishness and religious
orthodoxy.
(The US President's Party can't win without the religious right and I'd
guess 30 or 40% of the Republicans in the House are fundamentalists.)
The point? We can recognize the reactionary impulse in lots of different
flavors and forms. Social level value systems can get cornered or wounded
and they behave something like wild animals when they do. (Watch out.) Its
recognizable and even understandable in the middle east. There's no handy
solution becasue the situation is hopelessly complicated, but clearly the
answer lies in creating two secure nations, each capable of protecting their
sovereignty and the rights of their citizens. We need negotiators who know
the religious and political history of the region, who really speak the
language and fewer politicians.
DMB
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 - 16:02:10 BST