On 30 Apr 2002 at 0:44, Elizaphanian wrote:
> 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?"
Hi Sam
This would be the message of the month ...if there were such a title. A
true Quality approach to "politics" in general and the Middle East
conflict in particular. Wish everyone would print this out and paste it on
their - whereever. If there are paragraphs that I don't comment on it's
just total agreement.
> My suspicion is that it doesn't; my (somewhat disjointed) thoughts
> follow.
You are right, it's my old realization that the MOQ don't offer any moral
"how to ..." guide in the traditional sense, yet a new and better
explanation IS a "guide".
> 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.
A bit subtle these things. We assume that the levels were at work
before the MOQ, but nobody knew of any such distinction. In that sense
the MOQ showed us a social level. Before - seen from Intellect - it had
been jingoism and worse, while - seen from Society - it had been duty
and courage and all that is good. So if the MOQ diminishes attachment
.... it kind of diminishes attachment to Intellect too by showing us the
levels generally.
> 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).
This is just spot-on.
> 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.
This is so good that I just had to say it :-)!
> 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.
All good, and the last line an extra important observation. I guess
Intellect always has had some in-built international aspiration because
all social-national configurations are its natural born enemy.
> 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.
An extremely important point!
> 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?
Also an extraordinary point. IMO the first Jenin (and other similar
cases) hinges on national security in the - um - fascism sense while the
last (suicide bombers) on the social-justice-revenge urge. Maybe a dash
of the latter in the former case too.
> 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.
I would add: Religions are of different kinds. As I see it Christianity was
influenced by the budding intellectualism of the Greeks and Jesus a
forerunner for the new "courage of forgiveness", at least his more
archaic (social) traits has been weeded out by the later development.
> But perhaps asking for more religion in the Middle East at
> the moment is liable to be misunderstood....
Yes, of the "eye for an eye" kind that reigns there, definitely!!
> 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.
These are keen observations that aligns perfectly with the MOQ. The
Jews as dispersed people were (by the host nations) accused of
internationalism/intellectualism and all great ideas seems to be of
Jewish origin (Psychology, Marxism ..etc) but as Zionists they became
as social-level fixated as any - more so due to the exposed position.
> 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.
Hear hear!! Exactly what I tried to convey in my first and only post on
this issue.
> 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.
I am most impressed by this post Sam. By its content primarily, but it is
also good to see such a good lay-out and read your clear language. You
must have spent a considerably time on it.
Thank you.
Bo
PS
Hope this is no breach of confidence, but Pirsig wrote this after the
Sep.11 events.
> > .................... Within the long, long MOQ view of things Iım
> > optimistic that this current social earthquake will relieve social
> > tensions that have existed for centuries and lead to a better world.
> > Apparently Islam is now split between those, such as the urban Egyptians,
> > who favor the social freedom that allows the intellectual level to grow;
> > and conservative Muslim clerics, who want to prevent any social or
> > intellectual freedom. Christianity had the same problem during the
> > Renaissance and overcame it. So have other religions. In every case that
> > I can think of, the static forces have had to slowly and painfully give
> > way to the Dynamic ones.
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 - 16:02:14 BST