Hello Rog, Lawry, others.
First a thank you to Rog for the summary. I do think it's a helpful
practice.
I'd like to pick up the gauntlet thrown down by you and Lawry, in Lawry's
words: "does the MOQ really help create a new or better concept of a
solution to the conflict?"
My suspicion is that it doesn't; my (somewhat disjointed) thoughts follow.
1. The nation begins in the social level.
The nation state, in its predominant contemporary form, is geared around a
shared ethnicity - that is, a shared social level formation (linked to the
biological level, but not (mostly) equivalent to it). In other words,
England is for the English, France is for the French. When the chips are
down, are you one of us or one of them?
The social level was a DQ static latch innovation from the biological level.
If I share my resources and bond together with this tribe, then I will be
better off than if I just go all out for myself, or my own genetic
inheritance. And a properly functioning society provides huge benefits, not
least what can come from the specialisation of labour - if we don't all have
to spend all our time gathering food, then there is more time for developing
tools/ techniques/ culture/ language/ new flavours of Coca-Cola etc. And
that society depends upon a common interest - the building blocks for that
are the bonds shared amongst an extended family. So - simplifying rapidly
for reasons of space - most of the nations in the world are still (at least
in historical terms) geared around this shared ethnicity. And as the
elections in France have shown most recently, this is still a very live
issue.
Now nations are necessary constructs, in the sense that there has to be a
single monopoly of (legal) power in any defined area. The alternative is
conflict which is likely to become bloody. However, what the MoQ might have
to say here is that not all nations are the same.
2. A new type of nation is struggling to be born.
In about the 17th Century there started to be some innovations, most
particularly in the US which seems to me to be (in origin) built around a
shared intellectual framework. In other words, to be a member of the United
States, you had to swear allegiance to the constitution - an intellectual
level product. This was (surely) a high quality static latching of a dynamic
intellectual level breakthrough (let's call it the doctrine of human rights,
although in a separate post, if I have time, I'd like to challenge that).
Suddenly you have a nation which is explicitly not built upon a shared
ethnic heritage but upon shared values. Now, of course, nations had moved
away from a purely biological basis before (Christendom, the various
Empires) but I do think this represents a significant move away from a
nation built around a shared biological bond (of genetic heritage in some
form or other).
3. Acceptance of MoQ diminishes attachment to social level.
If you accept the foregoing in broad terms, and also buy into the MoQ, then
it seems to me that your attachment to the less 'intellectual' forms of
nationalism must decline (at least in reasoned terms). If you see that there
is a higher value than the nation, the doctrine of human rights, then you
will accept that there are times when it is necessary to go against your own
nation in pursuit of that higher value. It also means that you need to work
to reconstruct your own nation so that it is geared around support of those
rights, that it is criticised when it breaches those rights, but also that
it is defended from other nations that may be less likely to respect those
rights themselves. (Half a loaf is better than no bread).
4. What is proper role of support for social level? We must not undercut it.
Having said that it also seems to me that the MoQ does not mean that we
should abandon all the static-latches that support the social-level nation
state (eg flag waving, patriotism generally; but also, respect for national
languages, literatures, cultures). If we accept that we are composed of
various (competing) elements from each of the different levels then it is
only sensible to ensure that that part of ourselves which bonds with our
local groups is functioning effectively. (This is Pirsig's point about the
hippies, with which I am in compete agreement: the intellectuals have to
stand behind the police force, else they saw off their own sitting branch).
The full flourishing of human rights depends upon healthy societies beneath
them.
5. What is proper role of support for intellectual level?
The key here, I think, is the sense that all human beings have equal value.
That even if it is necessary to defend one particular nation (with a high
regard for human rights) against another nation or grouping (with a low
regard for human rights) there is still the question of how that defense
proceeds. To take actions which diminish the value of those human beings
outside your national grouping is to succour the *wrong* parts of the social
level. If it is true that the social level resists the control of the
intellectual level, then pandering to the social level instincts/forces will
end up undermining the intellectual level wholesale. So the support for
human rights has to be international, not nation specific. And of course
that applies within a nation also - to separate out different groups on the
basis of ethnicity or other largely biological grounds is destructive to
that higher level intellectual value. You could say this is what happened
with fascism.
6. Question of wisdom and how to develop it.
The million-dollar question, of course, is how to distinguish between those
actions which a state takes in order to defend its own high level of human
rights, and those which are merely taken in order to defend the social level
national grouping. With regard to the current conflict, is the action in
Jenin something which has safeguarded human rights, or is it something which
will logically lead to fascism? With regard to the suicide bombers, are
these things which move towards the defence of human rights, or are they
already the product of fascism?
To distinguish between options such as these requires wisdom - the ability
to think clearly and with emotional intelligence, the ability to step aside
from the instinctive social reactions (I'm under threat, who are my allies)
to see a broader pattern. The MoQ provides a different language with which
to describe the conflict, which may in marginal situations provide a greater
degree of understanding, but - at least to my mind - it doesn't provide many
resources for the development of wisdom. (Zamm provides more than Lila). To
solve the present situation requires, I believe, a transformation of
hearts - the virtues of courage and forgiveness above all. I don't think the
MoQ has anything in particular to say on that subject (although it
undoubtedly supports it and is harmonious with it). The development of
wisdom is, of course, at the root of all the great religious teachings. But
perhaps asking for more religion in the Middle East at the moment is liable
to be misunderstood....
7. Some hesitant concluding thoughts.
If it is true that Israel was founded on at least a partially-racial basis
(eg right of entry for Jews) then it was a retrograde step. If it was
founded to be a beacon of human rights in the Middle East, a haven of
tolerance open to all (the opposite of fascism) then it was a dynamic
breakthrough. My impression is that Zionism contained both these strands.
On both sides, those who support the doctrine of human rights (MoQ
intellectual level) have the hardest tasks - to support the nation/group
whilst repudiating those actions of their own side which are excessive.
Being reasonable and balanced does not carry much weight when passions run
high. They must also foster links across the divide. It's more difficult to
demonise the other, if some of the other are your friends.
For most people on this list, who are not directly involved and have
(presumably) some interest in the MoQ, our concern must surely be to stand
up for the human rights breakthrough, and to deplore those actions from
whichever sides go against it.
A truly dynamic MoQ breakthrough would probably involve not having two
separate states - but I can't see either side agreeing to that.
~~
Hope this doesn't sound too wishy-washy liberal. (Liberal in the European
sense, not the US sense). Would love to have it broken up and digested or
spat back at me by anyone who felt so inclined.
Sam
(in between nappy changes.... )
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 - 16:02:12 BST